6 year old pcn county claim form received

Got another BW Legal letter today, a helpful notice that the Count court claim has been issued. Was just going to ignore it and not engage but I am wondering whether I should email a request for evidence of failure to display ticket. My recollection is that they had photos of the car entering and leaving the car park but that's it.

Ok so, I have been working on my defence and slowly getting my head around the legalities. Now I need some critical eyes on this. Thanks in advance...

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: ___

Between:

v ___

Defence

I am ___, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle ___. I currently reside at ____.

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

1. The Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. And as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.

1.1 The Particulars of Claim were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail about an event alleged to have occurred six years ago. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about, why the charge arose, what the alleged contract; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged contravention in the Particulars of Claim and the Claim form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs.

1.2 This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The mail-merged documents contain very little information.

1.3 The Claim Form issued on the ____ by was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by BW Legal Services Limited (Claimant!!!8217;s Legal Representative).

1.4 The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

1.5 Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;
(i) Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
(ii) A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
(iii) How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
(iv) Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
(v) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
(vi) If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
(vii) If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed

1.6 Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.

2. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge.
2.1 A sum of £54 is claimed for !!!8220;Initial Legal Costs. Legal services cannot be claimed im the small claims court as per CPR 27.14

2.2 The claim includes a further sum of £50 !!!8220;Legal Representatives Costs!!!8221;. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 'legal representative costs' were incurred.

2.3 I deny the Claimant can reasonably expect interest dating back to 2012 when they have waited so long to bring the claim.

3. This case is pre Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA").

3.1 The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the POFA. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict keeper liability provisions.

3.2 I defend as the registered keeper. After six years, I am not able to recall who was driving the car at the time of the alleged contravention. It is unreasonable to wait six years to issue a claim against a keeper who cannot be held liable pre-POFA.

4. 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 forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr. Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

4.1 In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

4.2 The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.

4.3 In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:
(a) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 26th January 2017.
(b) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law.
(c) Waited six years to file a claim and did so two days before any alleged !!!8216;debt!!!8217; is Statute Barred under the conditions of the Limitations Act 1980.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Signed

Date

Thank you Couponmad, I am really grateful for your time and advice.
I am indeed reading and bookmarking but missed the one you've included above. It looks like there are a few points I should have included in my defence.
I'll work on it and repost tomorrow.

Ok,thank you for the replies. I have made the suggested changes and added some extra points from the linked post so I am posting again for another look over. I am not sure whether it is now a bit repetitive?

---

IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE
CLAIM NUMBER: ___

BETWEEN:

V ___

DEFENCE

This claim purports to relate to a parking charge relating to an identified vehicle in January 2012. As the registered keeper at the time of the alleged contravention, I am the defendant in this matter.
1. The Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. And as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.
1.1 The Particulars of Claim are extremely sparse and fail to disclose any cause of action or sufficient detail about an event alleged to have occurred six years ago.
1.2 The particulars fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction 16 by failing to provide a copy of the alleged contract (signage terms from 2012) or details of any agreement by conduct.
1.3 This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The mail-merged documents contain very little information.
2. This alleged incident pre-dates the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 (Schedule 4), before which there was no lawful route to hold a registered keeper liable for the action of an unidentified driver.
2.1 The Claimant has failed to produce any evidence regarding the identity of the driver and there can be no lawful presumption that a keeper was the driver on any given date in the absence of evidence. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
2.2 After six years, the Defendant is not able to recall who was driving the car at the time of the alleged contravention. It is unreasonable to wait six years to issue a claim against a keeper who cannot be held liable pre-POFA.
2.3 The Claimant is known to seek to rely on the case of Elliott v Loake [1983] Crim LR 36, in order to mislead the court that this case created a purported precedent that amounts to a presumption that the registered keeper is the driver. In that case, the finding that the keeper was the driver was based on the provision of forensic and other evidence, none of which has been presented here. Elliot v Loake was also a criminal case, which has no bearing on a civil contractual matter, as decided in several county court decisions where the Judges dismissed Elliott v Loake as not applicable.
3. As a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) in 2012, this Claimant was banned by the DVLA for several months for 'a significant breach' of the Code of Practice.

3.1. This ban was reported by the DVLA in a Freedom of Information reply in the public domain, as relating to unacceptable and misleading wording on their signs, which attempted to suggest a registered keeper could be liable, before the POFA was enacted. Implying that a keeper could be liable/responsible for the actions of a driver was identified by the DVLA as so serious a matter that Excel was banned from obtaining registered keeper data for three months.

3.2. It is averred that this misinformation regarding liability is exactly what this Claimant is repeating now, in the hope that neither the Defendant nor the Courts will realise that there can have been no 'keeper liability' on the material date and that this Claimant was actually banned for making these same misleading statements, around the time of this alleged incident.

4. The Claim Form was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction 22. Para 3.10 states that ''A legal representative who signs a statement of truth must sign in his own name and not that of his firm or employer''. The claim is not signed by a legal person but signed by BW Legal Services Limited (Claimant!!!8217;s Legal Representative).

5. The Claimant's solicitor, BW Legal, is a notorious, serial 'robo-claim' firm, whose relationship with various parking companies, and unacceptable conduct in pursuing unjustified and inflated parking charges was recently 'named and shamed' in a Parliamentary Second Reading of the Private Parking Code of Practice Bill, where one MP revealed he had reported this firm to the Solicitors' Regulation Authority to investigate. The Claimants themselves have been named by MPs on several occasions, regarding their predatory and aggressive business practices, woeful signage and lack of evidence of any agreed contract. The location in question is also a site which in 2012 was criticised in national media and by local MPs for inadequate and unclear signage leading to the cancellation of a number of notices against motorists by the Claimant.

5.1. The issuing of this baseless claim appears to be an attempt to intimidate the Defendant into paying an ancient and unsubstantiated 'charge' for which the Defendant is not legally liable. This shows a complete lack of respect for the court process and also demonstrates the failure of the Claimant to attempt to mitigate losses, by making an extortionate, unquantified and unjustified demand for £262.80.

6. It is averred that this Claimant failed to make reasonable efforts to make the terms and conditions in any of its car parks clear and prominent then, or at all. It cannot be assumed that anyone entering the car park in 2012 - when Excel used particularly crowded and illegible wording on all their signage - was aware of or agreed to any 'parking charge' terms. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the driver (an unidentified party) saw, read and agreed to a contract upon which the claimant is relying.

6.1. The court's attention is drawn to the words of Simon Renshaw-Smith (previously known as 'Captain Clampit') in Excel v Cutts (2011, Stockport County Court), where Excel's signage was held to be deliberately misleading and deceptive, hiding any 'contractual charge' in the smallest lettering.

6.2. The unclear signage used universally by Excel in 2011/2012 was exposed in an article by the Plain Language Commission, which reported that Mr Renshaw-Smith wrote to Stockport MP Andrew Gwynne: ''The recent decision by Deputy District Judge Lateef, is an embarrassment to the judicial system. Such an off the wall judgment leads one to question if there was indeed an ulterior motive. DJ Lateef is not fit to serve the Civil Courts''. It is averred that this Claimant continues to demonstrate a complete lack of respect for the court process, and a disregard for the rights of registered keepers in 2018. What is plain, is that the repeated exposure in Parliamentary debates condemning this Claimant and their solicitor is wholly justified.

7. 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 forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr. Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this is applicable to this case, and the Supreme Court was at pains to state that each parking charge case would necessitate individual consideration of the facts, and that the penalty rule was certainly engaged in such cases.
7.1 In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

8. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge.
8.1 A sum of £54 is claimed for !!!8220;Initial Legal Costs. Legal services cannot be claimed im the small claims court as per CPR 27.14
8.2 The claim includes a further sum of £50 !!!8220;Legal Representatives Costs!!!8221;. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 'legal representative costs' were incurred.
8.3 It is averred that this Claimant cannot reasonably expect interest dating back to 2012 when they have waited so long to bring the claim.
8.4 If interest is held to be due, the Defendant asks that the court considers the historically low base rate covering the period.

9. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:
(a) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 26th January 2017.
(b) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law.
(c) Waited six years to file a claim and did so two days before any alleged !!!8216;debt!!!8217; is Statute Barred under the conditions of the Limitations Act 1980.
9.1 In the absence of strict proof capable of rebutting the above points of defence, I submit that the Claimant has no cause of action whatsoever against the Defendant registered keeper, and the Defendant invites the court to exercise its case management powers to strike the claim out without a hearing, since it has no prospects of success.
I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Signed
Date