BW Legal Court Claim

1xvp1

I've now received a second money claim about a "contravention" at my own parking space, represented by BW Legal rather than Gladstones. The previous thread (I'm now awaiting Court Hearing): https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6592865/court-claim/p1

Particulars:



AOS completed on 3 August (issue date 18 July), so as far as I understand, I have until 20 August to fill the defence.

Question: can I use the same defence as in the first claim? It's the exact same spot (my parking space), just on a different date (a few days later in the spring of 2024). Should I counterclaim here as well? 

As a quick reminder, I own 100% of the flat in the building and this parking space comes with the lease. I did not update my details "on time" when changing cars, which is why all this senseless hassle.

Gr1pr

Estoppel comes to mind,  Henderson vs Henderson , the original claim should have listed ALL the outstanding pcns

Plus the defence template changed last month,  so I would expect you to use the new one with some of the old one,  plus estoppel too

Coupon-mad

I would consider a counterclaim for data abuse under the DPA 2018 and harassment (under the PFHA) relying on authorities including:

- Vidal Hall v Google
- Ferguson v British Gas
- Duchess of Bedford House (court of appeal) and county court decisions in:

VCS v Ferguson and Simon Clay v CEL.

...and also mentioning cause of action estoppel, Henderson v Henderson regarding the fact that the Claimant failed to bring their entire case within the first claim and cannot have two bites at the cherry.

1xvp1

Gr1pr said:

Estoppel comes to mind,  Henderson vs Henderson , the original claim should have listed ALL the outstanding pcns

Plus the defence template changed last month,  so I would expect you to use the new one with some of the old one,  plus estoppel too

I have emailed BW legal on 17 May with the following email but have not received a response.

Coupon-mad

Even better to support your counterclaim. And did you dispute all charges with the claimant way back when, stating or proving your absolute rights under your lease?

1xvp1

Coupon-mad said:

Even better to support your counterclaim. And did you dispute all charges with the claimant way back when, stating or proving your absolute rights under your lease?

I have not spoken to them at all, I ignored everything from them.

I just emailed the housing association to confirm whether this particular PCN has also been cancelled. I believe the previous two that were cancelled are with Gladstones. I stupidly threw away most of the correspondence from Gladstones and can't now check which PCNs they're "chasing".

Gr1pr

Email the DPO at Gladstones with a SAR to obtain all your data, including documents etc

You could email the DPO at the claimant parking company too, if its a good idea   ( sometimes it's better to not know, but seems better to know in your case   )

1xvp1

Gr1pr said:

Email the DPO at Gladstones with a SAR to obtain all your data, including documents etc

You could email the DPO at the claimant parking company too, if its a good idea   ( sometimes it's better to not know, but seems better to know in your case   )

Brilliant idea, I just did that, thank you.

1xvp1

Good morning. I've prepared the following defence, excluding Paragraphs 1 & 2, and everything after paragraph 4, from the template defence. I have not yet received confirmation from the Housing Association that this "PCN" was also cancelled; however, in this defence, I understand my main argument is the estoppel (para 6). Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 come from previous defence; however, I changed paragraph 7 to clarify I'm counter-claiming on the basis of a piecemeal pursuit of claims.

"3. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. 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 and driver.

4. The Claimant has no authority to issue parking charges on the Defendant’s property. The Defendant's leasehold agreement makes the Defendant the owner or occupier of the land in question for the purposes of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Defendant did not authorise the Claimant or any other party to pursue parking charges on this land.

5. In the alternative, the Defendant’s leasehold agreement explicitly grants permission to park on the land in question. As such, the Defendant holds primacy of contract. The Claimant's signs offer no new rights or agreements that the Defendant did not already have under the lease. Therefore, no contract can be formed between the Defendant and the Claimant. Furthermore, the management company cannot unilaterally alter the lease to create parking charges, as established in Link Parking v Ms P (C7GF50J7) [2016].

6. The Defendant notes that the Claimant (or their legal representatives) has previously issued proceedings regarding earlier Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) concerning the same vehicle, location, and circumstances. On 17 May 2025, the Defendant emailed BW Legal in response to a Letter of Claim dated 1 May 2025, specifically raising this issue and asking why these matters had not been included within their client’s earlier proceedings. No response was received.

It is submitted that this conduct amounts to an abuse of process under the principle in Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100, where a party is prevented from bringing successive claims which ought properly to have been included in earlier proceedings. The Claimant’s failure to consolidate all alleged PCNs into a single action is oppressive, wastes court resources, and unfairly burdens the Defendant with multiple sets of proceedings.

7. The Defendant seeks costs on an indemnity basis, on the grounds that the Claimant’s conduct in issuing successive claims amounts to unreasonable behaviour under CPR 27.14(2)(g). The piecemeal pursuit of claims has caused the Defendant unnecessary time, expense, and stress in having to defend multiple proceedings.

8. The Claimant may try to rely on the clause “subject to the rules and regulations of the landlord,” but case law, notably Link v Mrs P, establishes that issuing parking charges infringes on the Defendant’s right to quiet enjoyment of their property. This right supersedes any such clause in the lease.

9. The Defendant relies on the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which deems certain contract terms to be unfair. The interpretation of “subject to rules and regulations of the landlord” to justify additional charges for parking would fall foul of unfair contract terms, particularly clauses 10, 11, and 14 of the Act.

10. The Defendant also seeks an order forbidding the Claimant from issuing any further PCNs on the Defendant’s land and requiring the removal of any signs offering a contract to park.

11. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap). It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred."

Gr1pr

If you have not included paragraphs 1 , 2 , from the template,  nor paragraphs 4 to 10 either,  then the above will not fit into MCOL,  it only allows 122 lines , around 10 to 12 paragraphs,  not war and peace 

The template says to keep it concise , especially paragraph 3

1xvp1

Gr1pr said:

If you have not included paragraphs 1 , 2 , from the template,  nor paragraphs 4 to 10 either,  then the above will not fit into MCOL,  it only allows 122 lines , around 10 to 12 paragraphs,  not war and peace 

The template says to keep it concise , especially paragraph 3

Oh I see!  My apologies.

Is this better for paragraph 3 then?

"DEFENCE

1. ...
2. ...

3. The Defendant has a leasehold interest in the land which grants primacy of contract and an unfettered right to park, with no requirement to display permits or comply with terms unilaterally imposed by third parties. The Claimant has no authority from the landowner to interfere with those rights, nor can any such terms override lease provisions or the Defendant’s right to quiet enjoyment (Link Parking v Ms P [2016]). Further, the Claimant has previously issued proceedings regarding other Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) at the same location and concerning the same vehicle and facts. On 17 May 2025 the Defendant raised with BW Legal that such matters ought to have been consolidated. The Claimant’s failure to do so and pursuit of piecemeal claims amounts to unreasonable conduct and an abuse of process, caught by cause of action estoppel (Henderson v Henderson [1843]). Accordingly, the claim is wholly without merit and should be struck out.

4. - 10 ....


Do I need to include P20 Counterclaim here too?