BW Legal/UK Car Park Management - Claim Form

Coupon-mad

Re towing away: it's illegal, not unlawful.

And re HHJ Moloney: no, you've missed the point of using HHJ Moloney's fantastically clear words from the first Beavis hearing.

No judge will be familiar with that first transcript. Hence you need it!

Copy my wording about para 3.4 of HHJ Moloney's judgment and search for it here (or Google it, where only one result shows it: a Supreme Court blog from 2015 has it).

JPCN

Thank you @Coupon-mad for the clarification.

Just so I use the correct wording, this is what I found based on your post here. https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81892027#Comment_81892027?utm_source=community-search&utm_medium=organic-search&utm_term=para+3.4+of+HHJ+Moloney%27s+judgment+

I will copy and replace my 4.3 with the above?

Coupon-mad

Read & copy from the WS by @JackR1

😋

JPCN

Thank you @Coupon-mad for the pointer, I'll actually use all the points below from @JackR1 WS. with only point 3 been specific to my case

1. In accordance with Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) of POFA 2012, the Claimant is prohibited from recovering from the keeper any sum greater than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they existed at the time the Notice to Driver was issued. The sum claimed in these proceedings exceeds that statutory maximum and is therefore unrecoverable from the keeper. (Protection of Freedoms Act 2012)
2. Explanatory Note 221 to Schedule 4 confirms that a creditor “may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued.” Any additional sums, such as so‑called “debt recovery fees”, “late fees”, or other invented add‑ons are not “parking related charges” within the meaning of POFA. These additional amounts do not appear on signage, and are not part of any contractual parking charge, and are created solely by third‑party debt recovery agents. POFA provides no legal basis to impose keeper liability for such DRA‑fabricated fees, even if (which is denied) the Claimant had otherwise complied with POFA’s conditions.
3. Further, in correspondence dated 13 May 2025 from the Claimant’s solicitors (Exhibit JI_07), it is expressly admitted that the additional £60 relates to so‑called “debt recovery” activity and is purportedly justified by reference to IPC guidance. Trade association guidance cannot override binding case law, nor can it confer a right to recover sums which the courts have repeatedly found to be unrecoverable and abusive.
4. The Defendant denies that the quantum claimed is recoverable. The additional sums represent a penalty and an attempt at double recovery. Attention is drawn to paragraphs 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis (click here), confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation'.
5. The binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores EWHC4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.
6. The ‘additional charges’ constitutes a double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process as found by HHJ Jackson in Excel v Wilkinson G4QZ465V in which £60 had been added to a parking charge. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Following the beforementioned exaggerated costs and charges, the court is invited to strike out or dismiss the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

JPCN

By the way is Hyperlinks acceptable to judges or I should avoid ?

Coupon-mad

Hyperlinks should be fine. They are no different than footnotes after all.

If this is a hearing in person, if it goes ahead I would take printed copies too.

Le_Kirk

If that is a witness statement, it should be written in the first person so not "the Defendant" but "I"

JPCN

Just a quick update and question.

If the hearing is on 27 July 2026, when would you advise I should submit my witness statement? I assume I should not wait for their statement before submitting mine?

Also, a couple of days ago, whilst taking photo evidence for the case, they issued me with another PCN. I had literally just gone around the corner for 2 minutes to take photos of the entry from the main entrance. I have now submitted the template defence and will wait for this to take its course.

Car1980

I'd pencil in Friday 10th. But you should have the dates on your letter, and when they have to pay the hearing fee. When is that?

Also, a couple of days ago, whilst taking photo evidence for the case, they issued me with another PCN. I had literally just gone around the corner for 2 minutes to take photos of the entry from the main entrance. I have now submitted the template defence and will wait for this to take its course.

Defence template? I don't understand.

You can put the new ticket in your witness statement - it will be handy for demonstrating their unreasonable behaviour.

Assuming they don't discontinue of course.

JPCN

@Car1980 thank you, sorry I meant the the first appeal template.

Will add the ticket to my witness statement