Defence - UKCPM/BW Legal

flo4real

Hi guys,

Newbie here. I've followed the necessary steps and completed the AoS. Now, I'm not sure how to tailor my defence. Please can you advise? 
Also, what email address do I send my defence to or do I have to submit via MCOL?
Any help would be appreciated! Here's my PoC:

Coupon-mad

Welcome!

But this is all in the Template Defence thread. You aren't emailing anything.

Is the site your home address? Tenant? Owner?

flo4real

Coupon-mad said:

Welcome!

But this is all in the Template Defence thread. You aren't emailing anything.

Is the site your home address? Tenant? Owner?

Apologies for the delayed response. The site is a place I've parked on numerous occasions without encountering any parking restrictions. I was at a restaurant which is behind.

Gr1pr

So lets see your adapted paragraphs 2 & 3, probably based around the forbidding signage no contract,  trespassing aspect  ( but those are guesses because you haven't shown us pictures of the signage yet  )

flo4real

Gr1pr said:

So lets see your adapted paragraphs 2 & 3, probably based around the forbidding signage no contract,  trespassing aspect  ( but those are guesses because you haven't shown us pictures of the signage yet  )

I don't have a picture of the signage. I cannot recollect there being one when the supposed breach occurred. Please see adapted paragraphs 2 and 3:

2.  The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

3. The Defendant, as the registered keeper at the time of the parking charge, was not physically present at the time of the alleged incident. The Defendant has parked in the location on numerous occasions without any constraints.  

The stated offense occurred over a year ago only if true. There was no parking charge notice attached to the vehicle and no contractual agreement was entered into. At the time of the stated breach there was no visible signage restricting parking.

The Defendant has no further information regarding the circumstances surrounding the alleged breach, as the details provided in the Particulars of Claim are limited. It is important to clarify that the Defendant's role as the registered keeper does not necessitate disclosing the identity of the driver.

Gr1pr

You should be adapting paragraphs 2 & 3 of the template defence in announcements 

Your paragraph 2 is nothing like it, plus if you were not the driver  ( paragraph 3 says not present  )  then add but not the driver after the word Keeper 

No offence was committed,  so remove that word too

Coupon-mad

"The stated offense occurred over a year ago only if true."

What??

flo4real

Thanks for the comments - much appreciated. I've now adapted paragraph 2 and edited paragraph 3 below.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

 

3. The Defendant, as the registered keeper at the time of the parking charge, was not physically present at the time of the alleged incident. The Defendant has parked in the location on numerous occasions without any constraints.  

 There was no parking charge notice attached to the vehicle and no contractual agreement was entered into. At the time of the stated breach there was no visible signage restricting parking.

The Defendant has no further information regarding the circumstances surrounding the alleged breach, as the details provided in the Particulars of Claim are limited. It is important to clarify that the Defendant's role as the registered keeper does not necessitate disclosing the identity of the driver.

Coupon-mad

Yes that'll do except there's a niggle in my head that it looks a bit like you are trying to hide that you were the driver (there is literally no point hiding that, if you were!) yet you say:

"was not physically present at the time of the alleged incident".

Is that true? You were not driving? Why not just say at the end of 2:

The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper. The Defendant was not the driver'.


(ONLY IF THAT IS TRUE!)

flo4real

Okay, thanks again. I was driving and will note that down in the second paragraph. I've edited both now.  Please let me know what you think:

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper and driver.

 

3. The Defendant has parked in the location on numerous occasions without any constraints.  There was no parking charge notice attached to the vehicle and no contractual agreement was entered into. At the time of the stated breach there was no visible signage restricting parking.

The Defendant has no further information regarding the circumstances surrounding the alleged breach, as the details provided in the Particulars of Claim are limited. 

Coupon-mad

Yep that'll do, now you've removed the lie! As it is BW Legal you can expect them to push it all the way to a hearing.

And we trust you have been reading the forum more widely and know about the vital Public Consultation that is now open?

We hope posters would have seen the thread about it and bookmarked it.

We need you:

It's very important that people like you please join us to reply to the new Public Consultation, to tell the Government that:

a) you have no faith in POPLA or the IAS and that there must be the SINGLE APPEALS SERVICE that the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 all but 'promised' the public. As long as it is independent (and only ONE appeals service, not two involved in a race to the bottom) that will give a real option to resolve disputed cases out of court.

b).  THAT THE ENRICHMENT OF 'DEBT RECOVERY FEES' MUST BE COMPLETELY BANNED. DISPUTED CASES ARE NOT SOLVED BY A THIRD PARTY DEMANDING MORE MONEY AND OFFERING A 'PAYMENT PLAN' WHICH SHOULDN'T COST MORE MONEY, NOT EVEN A PENNY. THIS DID NOT HELP A JOT; IT'S JUST 'EXTORTION'.

c). Tell them about your experience and that your case reached court stage, precisely because (a) and (b) above mean there is no option, no safeguard for consumers EXCEPT to defend court claims and get proper dispute resolution.

Responses are invited to the Consultation now:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

Do it asap pleeease!

We will discuss it all in more detail on that thread so do come back next week, when we get our teeth into the questions.