Court Claim Form received - BW legal; help with defence appreciated

OKjim

Hi I have received the Claim Form on 13 feb, via BWLegal on behalf of KBT Ltd t/a Armtrac. I understand I must do AOS on MCOL within next few days, and also write a defence in the mean time.

I have looked at the template defence, but I am really not sure what exactly I am supposed to say in paragraph 3; can anyone help? Do I just deny all points of the Particulars? IMO the particulars also don't state a true breach of contract, displaying a ticket/permit is not strictly required since you can pay with an app which do not give out tickets/permits. Is that going to be deemed a reasonable objection?

An attempt was made to pay with the "flowbird" app though it obviously failed and didn't go through without the driver realising, so the driver/passenger would not have expected to display a ticket/permit at all. Should I say that?

I am the keeper, can't remember if I was driver, and I have not responded to the PCN, NTK or any debt collection whatsoever so far.

Thanks a lot for all your great help and advice!

Gr1pr

Paying via an app is a digital permit,  obviously digital permits cannot be displayed,  so if phone or app was available,  as well as a physical PDT terminal,  then maybe your proposal is a valid objection   ( many transactions are digital these days   ) , but if it was paid digitally then the valid objection would be that there was no physical paper permit to display as you mentioned 

Paragraph 2 is where you add an ending,  so if you cannot remember then use that unknown driver option

Paragraph 3 is about the POC,  is the date correct or not ?  They mention the incident date,  not issue date 

If the driver paid then that is a valid objection,  even if it was a keying error , even if it didn't go through,  the honest attempt may have been made.  They might argue that no attempt was made to resolve the matter since the incident date 

Clearly the added £60 is objected to 

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

You say "I have received the Claim Form on 13 feb", but what is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

OKjim

Yes the issue date was 13 Feb 2025

KeithP

OKjim said:

Yes the issue date was 13 Feb 2025

With a Claim Issue Date of 13th February, you have until Tuesday 4th March 2025 to file an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS'), but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AOS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AOS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 18th March 2025 to file a Defence.

That's almost four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the AOS guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an AOS, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

OKjim

I've done the AOS, now just need to focus on Defence, I'll post what I have a bit later on tonight for criticism.

OKjim

Gr1pr said:

Paying via an app is a digital permit,  obviously digital permits cannot be displayed,  so if phone or app was available,  as well as a physical PDT terminal,  then maybe your proposal is a valid objection   ( many transactions are digital these days   ) , but if it was paid digitally then the valid objection would be that there was no physical paper permit to display as you mentioned 

Paragraph 2 is where you add an ending,  so if you cannot remember then use that unknown driver option

Paragraph 3 is about the POC,  is the date correct or not ?  They mention the incident date,  not issue date 

If the driver paid then that is a valid objection,  even if it was a keying error , even if it didn't go through,  the honest attempt may have been made.  They might argue that no attempt was made to resolve the matter since the incident date 

Clearly the added £60 is objected to 

All interesting stuff thanks. Do I need to specify in paragraph 3+ that I'm objecting to the £60 or is that covered already later in the template?

I am not sure what you mean by issue date vs incident date. I don't have the PCN to see if the issue date = incident date but I assume they are the same on all documentation...

Gr1pr

Its covered in the defence template,  but sometimes in paragraph 3 as well,  study a dozen in other cases here 

Assumptions are very bad in court claims , better to put them to strict proof by alleging that it may be incorrect incorrect,  as seen in dozens of paragraph 3 cases here recently,  but usually its dcb legal and Moorside Legal that get it wrong,  hence why I said check it  ( clearly we wouldn't know   )

If in doubt,  check,  never assume 

OKjim

Gr1pr said:

Its covered in the defence template,  but sometimes in paragraph 3 as well,  study a dozen in other cases here 

Assumptions are very bad in court claims , better to put them to strict proof by alleging that it may be incorrect incorrect,  as seen in dozens of paragraph 3 cases here recently,  but usually its dcb legal and Moorside Legal that get it wrong,  hence why I said check it  ( clearly we wouldn't know   )

If in doubt,  check,  never assume 

Thanks, I did not word that very well. I don't the PCN but the NTK date matches the claim form POC at least.

OKjim

@Gr1pr *"I don't have the PCN" that should have read

Coupon-mad

Gr1pr said:

Its covered in the defence template,  but sometimes in paragraph 3 as well,  study a dozen in other cases here 

Assumptions are very bad in court claims , better to put them to strict proof by alleging that it may be incorrect incorrect,  as seen in dozens of paragraph 3 cases here recently,  but usually its dcb legal and Moorside Legal that get it wrong,  hence why I said check it  ( clearly we wouldn't know   )

If in doubt,  check,  never assume 

Not relevant to a BW Legal claim, where the POC does state the date of incident (not issue).

The OP just needs to add some facts in as para 3 of the Template Defence.