BW Legal - LBC?

KeithP wrote: »

With a Claim Issue Date of 17th October, you have until Monday 5th November to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox link from post #2 of

Having done the AoS, you then have until 4pm on Monday 19th November 2018 to file your Defence.

A whole month. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described here:

1) Print your Defence.
2) Sign it and date it.
3) Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
4) Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
5) Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
6) Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
7) Wait for your Directions Questionnaire and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Many thanks Keith I shall get started with AoS

Turbo

Hello All,

Here is what I have so far after reading through other posts.
Struggling all honesty as I don't believe I have much specifics in my case to go by...apart from point 6 which I know needs more work.
Honesty is the best policy but given the fact that BW have provided next to no information with regards to evidence...am I being to honest?

Constructive criticism welcomed
Many thanks
Turbo


IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: CXXXXXX
BETWEEN:
<CLAIMANT>
-and-
<DEFENDANT>
________________________________________

DEFENCE STATEMENT
________________________________________

1. The Defendant, <NAME>, <DOB>, and resides at <ADDRESS> and is admitted the driver of the vehicle on the day of this event.

2. The Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence.

3. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer).

4. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. So I have had to cover all eventualities and this has denied me a fair chance to defend this in an informed way. I have asked questions in the form of a Part 18 request but have not received adequate answers nor information requested.

5. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support. Furthermore the Claimant's solicitors have been reported to the regulatory authority by a ministers of parliament for unprofessional conduct. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim.

In further support of there being a want of cause of action:

6. The Defendant did not see any terms as they merely entered and exited the car park as a means to maneuver the vehicle safely, as opposed to attempting to complete a multi point turn on a very narrow and crowded road. The vehicle was stationary in the exit of the car park as they waited for family to enter the vehicle. Thus the Defendant was not parked. Therefore the Defendant was given no fair chance to read any terms, so the elements of a contract and agreement on any (unknown) charge are absent. Where terms on a parking sign are not seen/known, then there can be no contract. I rely upon the case of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest; CA 5 APR 2000, a case won by the consumer on appeal where the Judges also found that clear entrance signs are expected.

7. Any ‘charge’ or terms on signage on the day was not seen but even if the court believes signs were displayed, the terms were not sufficiently displayed as to be illegible, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

8. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added solicitors fees are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in any event.

9. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.

10. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers using the car park to maneuver their vehicle safely, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.

11. As was confirmed in the Beavis case, ParkingEye could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).

12. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and patronising. As such, the Defendant is keeping note of their wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

13. The court is invited to strike out the claim, due to no cause of action nor prospects of success.

14. The Defendant believes the facts and information in this defence are true and the Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.

<SIGNATURE>
<DATE>