BW Legal County Court Defence

So I've been trying to establish a defence, and have based it around a similar case in the exact same month/location as this one, which in turn the Defendant won at the local crown court;

---

1. The Particulars of Claim do not state a clear cause of action. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged contravention in the Particulars of Claim.

1.1 I therefore request the court to strike out the claim using their court management powers, for disclosing no cause of action or for the court to order further & better particulars of claim and leave for the defendant to amend their defence.

2. I defend as registered keeper. After 6 years, I am not able to say who was driving the car at the time in question. Assumptions cannot be made, particularly as this claimant is well known for citing the totally inappropriate criminal case of Elliott v Loake to infer the driver

** It'll be 6 years by the time the defence is likely to be submitted, if I submit it in early its likely to be 5 Years 11 Months, how should this be phrased **

3. The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist. The claim is for Parked in a restricted area of the car park.

The signage also back in 2012 was for a fine to be paid in 7 days, this has since changed to 14 days.

I also, believe that the PCN was in relation to "Being seen walking away from the Leisure Park" How can I go about obtaining the actual PCN from them prior to submitting a defence, or are they likely to decline sending anything before a defence is provided?

The Signage in regards to "walking away from Leisure park" is also very small, and would be likely to be regarded as inadequate sizing for a motorist to see. I've pictures of this from Google images before and after the incident.

4. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case.

4.1 Neither the claim form, nor the signage state who the owner of the land is.

4.2 The signage states that "Excel Parking Services LTD manage and control this car park". Excel Parking Services LTD are therefore acting as an agent of the landowner. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name. Any claim should be in the name of the landowner.

4.3 If Excel Parking Services LTD deny acting as an agent, they are put to strict proof by disclosing the appropriate parts of their contract with the landowner.

5. The Particulars of Claim state that "The Claimant also claims £54.00 contractual costs pursuant to the PCN Terms and Conditions".

5.1 Previous letters to the defendant from BW Legal have stated that the £54.00 claimed is "for our client's initial legal fees".

5.2 Legal services cannot be claimed in the small claims court as per CPR 27.14

6. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 (The Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage which formed a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a license to park fee. None of this applies in this case.

7. The claim includes a sum of £50, described as "Legal representative's costs". This work is done as part of the Claimant's everyday routine and no "expert services" are involved. The Claimant is put to strict proof, by way of timesheets or otherwise, to show how this cost has been incurred.

8. The Unfair terms in the Consumer contact regulations 1999 applies.

8.1 The claim is in breach of Regulations 8 (1) of the regulation and article 6 (1) of the Unfair Terms directive (in providing that an unfair term is not to be binding on the consumer).