BW Legal Court Claim

Coupon-mad · 2 November 2018 at 4:48PM

if the store managers reply back saying they will get the fine cancelled will this mean that the claim could be dropped by BW Legal?

Nope, but get that in writing or by email from the Shops/Head Offices, get them to say they WANTED it cancelled and do not support the fining of customers.

You can then later use that as evidence that there is no legitimate interest or commercial justification to back the fine, and that distinguishes your case from Beavis.

Sayn · 2 November 2018 at 9:03PM

Thanks Coupon-mad.

I received a response from one of the 3 stores I emailed who have said that unfortunately the parking system in operation at this particular place is not one they have requested and therefore they are unable to appeal on my behalf but just offered some goodwill vouchers instead. :-( (Hoping I have luck with the other 2 that i've emailed but not very hopeful)

Also I was looking back thorugh the SAR request I sent to NCP requesting information they had on me and they only thing they sent back to me were the following
1) copy of the original PCN with the reduced fine of 60pounds (not sure if I received this one originally as i cannot find it anywhere and I doubt i would have thrown it away if i had received it)

2)copy of the 2nd letter with the 100pound fine
3) Photo of my vehicle entering and exiting the carpark with the zoomed in photos of the numberplate
4) A printout from their website of notes on How does NCPs PCN comply with DPA 2018
5) A printout from their website of the privacy & cookie policy
6) A copy of my original SAR letter that I sent to them

Things they didnt provide at all

No photgraphs of the vehicle inside the car park of it parked in a bay or anywhere else
no photos of the driver
no photos of any signage
no contract with owner or any info on who owns the land
no info or details of sharing my data with Trace or BW legal who had sent me letters (do these count as 3rd parties)?

Just wondering if any of this can be used to my advantage later on as they haven't provided what I asked for and anyone I need to contact about it now?

Sayn · 2 November 2018 at 9:10PM

[FONT=Calibri Light, sans-serif]I have drafted a defence below. Can someone please see the particulars of claim that i posted above and then read this defence to see if it is ok or if I need to add or take anything away. This stuff is really taking up alot of time and effort so just want it to all be over and done with.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri Light, sans-serif]Thanks again all the helpers on here. Really appreciated
[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri Light, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri Light, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri Light, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri Light, sans-serif]In The County Court [/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri Light, sans-serif]Claim No: *******[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri Light, sans-serif] Between[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri Light, sans-serif]National Car Parks Limited
BW Legal Services Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

********(Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri Light, sans-serif]1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri Light, sans-serif]2. The facts are that the vehicle with registration ****** of which the Defendant was the Registered Keeper was captured on an ANPR camera on the 00/00/0000 entering and exiting a private car park/land located at *********, ******. [/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri Light, sans-serif]3. The particulars of claim are very vague and lack suitable information as to the grounds for the Claimant’s case. They fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Furthermore, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as nothing is mentioned which specifies how the parking terms were breached. These assumptions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action and therefore there is no liability towards the Defendant.[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri Light, sans-serif]4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct. [/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri Light, sans-serif]5. Currently, the only legislation available which allows a private parking company to hold the registered keeper liable is The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012). As the Claimant has produced no evidence to show that the Defendant was the driver, the Claimant cannot simply rely on 'reasonable presumption' to determine the registered keeper as being the only driver of the vehicle as this is not based upon facts according to POPLA report 2015.[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri Light, sans-serif]6. The The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, which in this case is £100. The Claimant includes an additional £60 in this claim, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. It is apparent that apart from court fees incurred, any added legal fees/costs are simply made up by the Claimant.[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri Light, sans-serif]5a. The claim further includes a sum of £50 described as “Legal Representatives Costs” which are again an attempt by the Claimant at a double recovery as there is no extra work involved or any other services used by them to justify this cost incurred. The Claimant is put to strict proof, by showing time-sheets or otherwise to justify these overstated costs.[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri Light, sans-serif]7. If a parking breach did occur as alleged by the Claimant then this would be a matter for the landowner to pursue for any damages resulting from the trespass. The Claimant is put to strict proof that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to National Car Parks Ltd and that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land and necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue pieces parking charge notices pursuing payment by means of litigation.[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri Light, sans-serif]7a. A Parking Charge cannot be disguised as a fee or a sum in damages owed to a firm which does not own the land but allows cars to trespass upon it. The decision of the supreme court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass. [/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri Light, sans-serif]8. Before submitting a claim the Claimant failed to supply a letter before action that complied with the Practice direction on pre-action conduct. The information that the letter before action did not supply was as follows:[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri Light, sans-serif]a) Facts on which the Claimant has based this claim on[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri Light, sans-serif]b) Documents that were requested by the Defendant upon which the Defendant intents to rely[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri Light, sans-serif]c) How the initial charge of £160.00 has been calculated and how the Claimant justifies this[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri Light, sans-serif]d) Any photographic evidence of the driver of the vehicle or proof of the vehicle parked in a bay or within any part of the car park[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri Light, sans-serif]9. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri Light, sans-serif]10. It is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Consequently, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri Light, sans-serif]I believe the facts contained in this defence are true.[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri Light, sans-serif]Name[/FONT]

Sign

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Calibri Light, sans-serif]Date[/FONT]
[/FONT]

dms1234 · 2 November 2018 at 11:52PM

I got issued a parking ticket in march from ncp saying that I was wrongly parked.
the ncp carpark is connected to my gym. pure gym. to were I am entitled for 2 hours free parking from 6pm-12pm I parked in the carpark within the allocated time for aprox 38 mins. but there argument is that I didn't put my numberplate in the machine. To my knowledge I did but I can't prove otherwise. instead I showed proof from my gym on the date and time I entered the gym and left which matched with the exact time of my ticket. to which they rejected my appeal. I then appealed further to poppa who also rejected this. since then I have had countless calls letters and emails from by legal who have now said if I don't pay I will get a cjj against my name. though I feel as if its very unfair considering I showed I was in the gym the time of the parkin. I'm panicking as I have to now send this appeal of by 7th November and I have no knowledge if I can do anything to appeal or stop this as the last thing I want is a cjj.
please can you help me I'm worried what to do or do I need to just suck it up and pay now to avoid the cjj.

KeithP · 2 November 2018 at 11:58PM

dms1234, that's twice in a matter of minutes that you have posted that.

Your post is of no relevance to this thread.

Please do what you were advised to do last time you had problems with a parking company - read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread, and then if you still have questions then start a new thread - like you did in 2017.

Please delete your post from this thread.

Coupon-mad · 3 November 2018 at 12:33AM

BW Legal Services Ltd (Claimant)

No, they are not.

System · 3 November 2018 at 7:51AM

@Sayn.

From what you have said, the driver(s) had a habit of parking and not paying which continued while there was a warden on site. AFAIU this continued until they installed ANPR linked to a payment machine instead.

Have you checked to see how many potential claims there may be? If you have one, there may be others - or have you just had the one Notice to Keeper? Clearly if there is more than one, the "not seeing the signs" defence is out of the window.

Sayn · 4 November 2018 at 11:25PM

@ IamEmanresu

I belive there is only the one claim as the driver/s never returned to that car park since this claim was received and there has been no other PCNs received since this one.

Everytime the driver parked there in the past even though there was a P&D machine where you would have to enter your reg although the driver did not do that there was never any PCNs received but on this occasion there was.

Can anyone let me know if the defence posted above is all ok to send off?
Is there anything you would add to it or take away?
Does it seem to vague?

Please let me so that I can prepare to send it off and find out what to do next.
(I am aware about removing BW legal from the claimant title above it thanks to coupon mad for pointing that out for me)

Looking forward to any input from the experts on here. Thanks again.

Sayn · 4 November 2018 at 11:28PM

Also is the layout and the way it is numbered all ok.
I have just spotted a numbered mistake which I will amend.

How long would it be before I hear back after sending the defence?

Coupon-mad · 5 November 2018 at 12:55AM

Defence looks OK to me, as long as you removed:

BW Legal Services Ltd (Claimant)

In the NEWBIES thread, bargepole tells you what to expect next (N180) and how to complete it.

BW Legal Court Claim

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free