Countrywide/BW Legal Claim Form defence - advice kindly requested

tvrtuscan350

PoC only (redacted):



Entire Claim Form (redacted):

tvrtuscan350

Posted claim form above (and PoC for ease of reading).  Issue Date is 28 May 2025.  I will complete the AOS online using MCOL tomorrow then post my draft of just defending the inadequate compliance with the POFA paragraph 9(2)(a) due to not having an adequate address on the NTK.

Gr1pr

Your password is unredacted 

tvrtuscan350

Gr1pr said:

Your password is unredacted 

Great spot, and I thought I'd gone through it all!  Password now redacted (doh!)

Coupon-mad

tvrtuscan350 said:

Posted claim form above (and PoC for ease of reading).  Issue Date is 28 May 2025.  I will complete the AOS online using MCOL tomorrow then post my draft of just defending the inadequate compliance with the POFA paragraph 9(2)(a) due to not having an adequate address on the NTK.

You aren't JUST defending on that basis. The Template Defence includes loads more!

Also, was the car stopped for 13 minutes merely to drop off or collect a passenger, or loading/unloading?

tvrtuscan350

Hi there,

Yes, noted re. the template points.  Thanks for pointing that out.  I guess I meant just defending on one point that is particular to my case.

I was actually dropping off a rescued pigeon at a bird rescuer (I have WhatsApp messages to prove this).  So I guess that counts as unloading.  The rehabber was late getting to me hence I slightly overstayed the time.

It was a busy street late at night and I had my two daughters (4 and 6) asleep in the car so pulled into what I thought was a closed KwikFit.  Turns out it was a disused KwikFit tyre centre taken over by a scam car parking company.  I had no idea (and neither did my passenger) that it was no longer functioning as a KwikFit.  They'd made no attempt to cover up the KwikFit signage (I have photos I can share).

There's plenty of free street parking at that time so it's definitely just a trap/cash cow for the parking company, attempting to catch people unaware.

If they'd had a ticketting warden and/or a ticket barrier rather than relying on cheap ANPR then I would never have pulled in.

I can have a go at adding these additional items of defence but my question to all you amazingly generous experts is that what is the consensus on my best defence being to either a) only add the single point regarding the address or b) go with all these additional points/circumstances as well as the address?

Thanks loads for all the input and advice...

Happy to go into more detail if it helps but trying to keep it as short as possible to save your reading time but let me know if this is the wrong approach.

Coupon-mad

These are actually stronger points than the address point (but do mention it).

But the below is a strong contract law point and more likely to impress a judge at a hearing than a technicality about the POFA, so you should ADMIT to being the driver and also state that you didn't know about (let alone agree to) a contract because any signs were hidden and unlit and were never seen:

I was actually dropping off a rescued pigeon at a bird rescuer (I have WhatsApp messages to prove this).  So I guess that counts as unloading.  The rehabber was late getting to me hence I slightly overstayed the time.

It was a busy street late at night and I had my two daughters (4 and 6) asleep in the car so pulled into what I thought was a closed KwikFit.  Turns out it was a disused KwikFit tyre centre taken over by a scam car parking company. 

I had no idea (and neither did my passenger) that it was no longer functioning as a KwikFit.  They'd made no attempt to cover up the KwikFit signage (I have photos I can share).
There's plenty of free street parking at that time so it's definitely just a trap/cash cow for the parking company, attempting to catch people unaware.

tvrtuscan350

Perfect, thanks for clarifying.  I'll have a go at drafting my defence with the additional points and post here for proof reading if anyone would be so kind.

troublemaker22

tvrtuscan350, I've sent you a DM

Gr1pr

tvrtuscan350 said:

Perfect, thanks for clarifying.  I'll have a go at drafting my defence with the additional points and post here for proof reading if anyone would be so kind.

Just so you know, the landowner is not Kwikfit, more likely they were tenants,  the landlord probably contracted with the parking company,  especially if it was a retail park with multiple outlets like some around me ( parking companies rarely own the land,  they are employed as sub contractors  )

Never stop on private property if public roads are available,  most of these private places use ANPR cameras to trap the unwary drivers 

As for the defence,  you will be using the template defence and following the advice given above,  plus the content of the private message sent by the respondent above , especially if its about a strike out application 

Do post it here,  BUT only post the few paragraphs that you have changed,  not all 30, its only your homework being checked,  not the rest.  But use all 30 when its ready for emailing