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

OKjim

Please have a read of this. Am I correct to not say who attempted to pay for the original parking? I am also not sure if the "facts" section is the best place to put my argument about app payment vs "display a valid ticket/permit"...

Also is number 5 good to say?

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper. The Defendant shares use of the car and cannot remember whether he was driving.

3. It is denied that the central alleged non-action would be sufficient to breach the contract if one were deemed to exist. The alleged breach per the Particulars of Claim is “failure to display a valid ticket/permit”, but it is also possible to pay in other ways like the “Flowbird” app which do not provide a permit or ticket to display. The Defendant avers that no ticket or permit display could be strictly required to avoid breaching the purported contract as alleged in the Notice To Keeper and Particulars of Claim.

4. The Defendant does not believe he could have entered into contract in full knowledge of “terms and conditions” upon entry into the car park due to their small size, obscurity and the fact that they are so confusing that even with the benefit of hindsight the parking company and solicitors appear not to understand them.

5. The Defendant did subsequently not enter into communication with KBT/Armtrac or BW Legal as all information he could gather pointed to it not being within the scope of operation of either organisation to behave reasonably with respect to arguments or appeals put to them. Please see the damning 99% and 98% 1-star reviews respectively on scam watch website “Trust Pilot” for evidence of this behaviour and its resulting public image:

https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.armtracservices.co.uk

https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/bwlegal.co.uk

OKjim

Also it has been suggested to me that I send in much a shorter defence, requesting them to send full particulars rather than responding to the deficient particulars. Is there any merit to this approach?

Coupon-mad

OKjim said:

Also it has been suggested to me that I send in much a shorter defence, requesting them to send full particulars rather than responding to the deficient particulars. Is there any merit to this approach?

We say no.  Not recommended here.

This: "and cannot remember whether he was driving" contradicts para 4 which gives away who was driving.

If it was you, say so. Judges prefer it.

I'd remove para 5 which adds nothing useful.

OKjim

Coupon-mad said:

OKjim said:

Also it has been suggested to me that I send in much a shorter defence, requesting them to send full particulars rather than responding to the deficient particulars. Is there any merit to this approach?

We say no.  Not recommended here.

This: "and cannot remember whether he was driving" contradicts para 4 which gives away who was driving.

If it was you, say so. Judges prefer it.

I'd remove para 5 which adds nothing useful.

Thanks

Is it better to say I was driving even if I can't remember who was driving? Do I immediately become "the driver" if I was going to pay for the parking?

Yes I thought p5 wouldn't really be a defence, just pre-emptively countering "defendant is unreasonable bc he didn't respond to scam letters" argument. I will remove.

Coupon-mad

If you genuinely can't remember then leave that sentence as it is & correct the error in para 4.

OKjim

Hi

I have looked at the signs as they are today, and they do mention the app more than once as an alternative payment method, but I do not have access to the PCN or the signs at the time of the PCN yet.

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper. The Defendant shares use of the car and cannot remember whether he was driving.

3. It is denied that the central alleged non-action would be sufficient to breach the contract if one were deemed to exist. The alleged breach per the Particulars of Claim is “failure to display a valid ticket/permit”, but it is also possible to pay in other ways like the “Flowbird” app which do not provide a permit or ticket to display. The Defendant avers that no ticket or permit display could be strictly required to avoid breaching the purported contract as alleged in the Particulars of Claim.

Coupon-mad

That'll do.  

Le_Kirk

OKjim said:

2.................. The Defendant shares use of the car and cannot remember whether he was driving.
The Defendant shares use of the car and cannot remember whether he or someone else was driving.
The Defendant shares use of the car and cannot remember whether he was driving or not.
The Defendant shares use of the car and cannot remember whether if he was driving.

incomplete sentence above, change to one of the suggested alternatives.

OKjim

Does anyone know if the incomplete "breach" on the NTK means they cannot rely on POFA to establish keeper liability and if so do I need to specifically say that in this defence? Thanks a lot for all the help so far.

Coupon-mad

No. The POFA doesn't talk about POC.