BW Legal UKCPM claim defence advice needed

Coupon-mad

Remove 'from Ashby v Tolhurst [1937]' which isn't a relevant case.

And change:

"It is also true that the Defendant was under the impression that the location at which the vehicle was pictured was an unrestricted road and adjacent pavement..."

to

It is also true that there were a lack of signs and lines, therefore the Defendant believed this was an unrestricted public road...


But hang on a minute, isn't this a Gladstones claim? Show us the POC. You should be using the linked para 3 with Chan & Akande, shown in the Template Defence.

Krunkled_Mustilid

Sorry for delayed response, I was walking in the Peak.
A Glasdstones claim??
The POC is:
The claim is for £170.00 for an unpaid paing charge following a contractual breach which occurred on 17/03/2024 in the private land (lawfully occupied by the Claimant) at 42 Queens Road Nottingham (Cctv) by the driver of
RENAULT CLIO AUTHENTIQUE
RENAULT CLIO AUTHENTIQUE
registration mark #######. The terms and conditions displayed offered the driver a contractural license, were accepted by the driver upon entry, and subsequently breached. Driver's breach:
Failure to obtain authorisation and/or display a valid permit
The Claim also includes £70.00 recovery costs as set out in the terms and conditions and the ATA AoS Code of Practice.

Ammended Paragraph 3:

3. The Defendant appealed within the given time frame, the Claimant refused the appeal, stating that the Defendant was too late and the Claim had already been passed on to Claimants debt collectors.

The appeal was on the grounds that: a.) There was no signage at the location at which the Claimant pictured the vehicle therefore there was no contractual license offered. b.) The defendant did not leave the vehicle so was not parked but was waiting for a passenger. c.) The address stated in the original demand (42 Queens Road, Nottingham) is not the address that the vehicle was pictured at (48-50 Queens Road, Nottingham).

It is also true that there were a lack of signs and lines, therefore the Defendant believed this was an unrestricted public road, therefore no ‘entry’ could occur that would trigger an acceptance of any contract.

Is this enough, and will I need to leave out paragraph 10 to fit in the line/word/character count?

Thanks for the time.

Castle

Why do people leave their claim number, password and their name showing!

Krunkled_Mustilid

Thank you!

Coupon-mad

Driver's breach:
Failure to obtain authorisation and/or display a valid permit

Ah, we now know it's a BW Legal UKCPM claim. Please edit your thread title to put those two company names instead of 'CNBC'.

So I am wrong (it's not Gladstones solicitors) so Chan & Akande aren't relevant to your defence because they have specified a breach.

But this advice is still correct for you:

Remove 'from Ashby v Tolhurst [1937]' which isn't a relevant case.

And change:

"It is also true that the Defendant was under the impression that the location at which the vehicle was pictured was an unrestricted road and adjacent pavement..."

to

It is also true that there were a lack of signs and lines, therefore the Defendant believed this was an unrestricted public road...

Krunkled_Mustilid

Title edited, I thought the CNBC stood for the civil national business centre, which is what is on the claim form.

So if I copy and paste the template including the amended paragraph3 that will fit the form on the MCOL?

Again thanks for all the help in this. I really wish I'd never waited there and I will never trust any part of any road again. I really hate the waste of peoples time and public money just for some shister extortionist sharks to make a quick buck.

Coupon-mad

Krunkled_Mustilid said:

Title edited, I thought the CNBC stood for the civil national business centre, which is what is on the claim form.

It does stand for that.

But that really doesn't help us when we see a thread title among hundreds each day! They are ALL from the CNBC but not all are from BW Legal. This helps us help you.

It will fit in MCOL, yes. But don't disappear!

We need you! Please read this message and take time this month to do the vital current Public Consultation:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81552148/#Comment_81552148

It's important that the Government hears from people like you with unfair charges who are dealing with scary court claims. That's when you win ... but most people don't know that these cases are a greedy scam and almost all are won in the end. There's no risk.

The link shows the two vital points to concentrate on, IMHO:

- banning 'fee' add-ons completely.

- making sure a new SINGLE appeals service replaces POPLA and the IAS which are seen as not fully independent and involved in a 'race to the bottom'.

Click through to the main thread about the Consultation.

Do not be deterred by the fact that some questions are for the parking industry only.

We are currently discussing how to respond. Please join us in doing this Consultation before it closes in three weeks. This is your one chance to make a difference re the proper regulation of private parking.

Krunkled_Mustilid

Thanks for the help.

I have submitted and hopefully they will discontinue. I have filled out the consultation survey, very leading. I wrote my socialist manefesto as reasons for most of my answers.

I will update this thread as and when.

Cheers