BW Legal (NCP) Letter of Claim

Thank you for your email, the contents of which have been noted on file.



Please find attached a copy of the Notice to Keeper which Our Client issued to you as requested.
As established members of the British Parking Association, Our Client adheres to their Code of Practice for Private Enforcement on Private Land and Unregulated Car Parks ('Code of Practice'). This Code of Practice gives recommendations in regards to the signage within the Car Park. The signs within the car park comply with the recommendations in the Code of Practice and are therefore deemed reasonable.
Please be aware that the contract between Our Client and the landowner is a legally privileged document which you have no right to inspect. However, should this matter progress to court, the contract will be adduced as evidence.



· The driver of the vehicle contravened the rules of parking at the site by breaching the site’s Terms and Conditions, as the vehicle was parked without payment of the parking charge

· Our Client is pursuing you as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

· Our Client has followed the rules laid out and intends to rely on Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

· The signage in situ makes provision for our client to recover any additional costs (Contractual Costs) incurred by them in relation to the PCN. The Contractual Costs referred to above formed part of the terms and conditions (of the parking contract) which were accepted by you in the course of staying at the Car Park. Save for the fact that the sum of £60.00 attributable towards these costs are entirely reasonable for nature and type of work involved in recovering the parking charge, such costs are recoverable under the relevant parking code of practice.



Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact our office on 0113 487 0432



Kind Regards,



bwlegal

Good Afternoon

Thank you for your recent email, the contents of which have been noted on file.

The correspondence issued by Our Client gave you, the Registered Keeper, the opportunity to name the driver of the vehicle on the date of the contravention. The correspondence warned that should this information not be forthcoming within 28 days of the date on the letter, and payment not have been made, they had the right to recover the Outstanding Balance feom you under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The Registered Keeper is liable for the sum of £100.00 as stated on the Notice to Keeper. As this matter has been passed to us, you are also liable for our £60.00 instructions fee. The signage in situ makes provision for Our Client to recover any additional costs (Contractual Costs) incurred by them in relation to the Parking Charge Notice. The Contractual Costs referred to above formed part of the Terms and Conditions (of the parking contract) which were accepted by you in the course of staying at the car park. Save for the fact that the sum of £60.00 attributable towards these costs are entirely reasonable for nature and type of work involved in recovering the parking charge, such costs are recoverable under the relevant parking code of practice.

We appreciate that it may not always be convenient to call us, therefore why not review your account online by visiting our website https://www.bwlegal.co.uk to set up your account online. Our Customer Portal provides you with the functionality to speak to us by webchat, complete your income and expenditure, make a payment or set up an affordable payment plan at your convenience.

Should you have any further queries please contact our office on 0113 487 0432.

Kind Regards,
bwlegal

IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: xxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:
National Car Parks Limited (Claimant)

-and-

My name (Defendant)

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at xxxxxxxx private car park on xx/xx/xxxx.

1.1. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

2. The allegation appears to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper 'not purchasing the appropriate parking time'.

3. According to the ANPR photographs provided by the Claimant, the Defendant’s vehicle seems to be claimed to have been captured at the exit after a mere 11 minutes and 29 seconds on site. Not only is this very short period considered to be de minimis, given the time of year/conditions in the car park, the Defendant further contends that the entry/exit cameras are separate and operate their own timings, with no synchronisation. It is contended that the car was actually parked for under ten minutes, and left the site within a reasonable grace period without accepting any contract to park and leave the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their skewed timings, not just by producing ANPR system records from each camera but also being put to strict proof that the system clocks/timers were operating exactly in synch on the material date.

3.1. At the material time, the Claimant was obliged, under their Trade body's mandatory form of rules - that the Supreme Court Judges in the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis case referred to as a 'regulatory framework' - to follow the British Parking Association CODE OF PRACTICE ('BPA') CoP, which said: Grace Period

13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

3.2 The driver did not accept the offer and has left the site therefore no breach was made.

4. The Claimant’s representatives, BW Legal Ltd, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 to £217,88 (can I include here the interest and solicitior cost?). The Defendant submits the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; that these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts.
a. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”.
b. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £217,88. This appears to be an added cost with no apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
b. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.


Amount Claimed £167.88 (£100 PCM + £60 inicial legal costs + £7.88 statuatory interest)
Court Fee £25
Solicitor Costs £50

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.