Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Supersaver2017
    • By Supersaver2017 5th Jan 18, 3:50 PM
    • 50Posts
    • 12Thanks
    Supersaver2017
    BW Legal Court Papers
    • #1
    • 5th Jan 18, 3:50 PM
    BW Legal Court Papers 5th Jan 18 at 3:50 PM
    Hi Guys,

    Just want to start by thanking anyone who has posted any information/advice on these forums, it has been invaluable in getting me to this stage.

    Let me summarise where I currently stand.

    I have recently been sent a County Court Claim Form from BW Legal on behalf of Excel Parking Services. I initially received a letter back dating to June 2014, which states payment had not been made for a parking in a pay-and-display car park. The driver on the day had purchased a ticket and had incorrectly entered their registration plate.

    I responded to the first letter after reading advice on here, acknowledging the letter but specifying it did not meet the required 'Letter Before Claim' criteria.

    I received another letter stating that they felt they had provided the required information and asking for payment once again. I then (as advised on here) sent another letter breaking down further the information relating to the Practice Direction about what is needed in order for me to respond correctly, and strangely I then was sent a letter stating that as they had no reply from me (since their first letter, despite this being dated 3 weeks after) they were going to start Court Proceedings.

    I replied again stating that I had maintained correspondence and have the email dates to prove this, but instead received the Court Claim forms a few days ago.

    I am now drafting my defence on a number of points and will post on here ASAP, but until then any advice on what to focus on as a rough guide or any questions about the situation would be welcomed.

    Thanks to all in advance
Page 1
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 5th Jan 18, 4:19 PM
    • 7,569 Posts
    • 10,084 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #2
    • 5th Jan 18, 4:19 PM
    • #2
    • 5th Jan 18, 4:19 PM
    And does the court claim fully comply to the
    new procedure ?

    Sounds like BWLegal are on the funny stuff again

    Next they will be saying they are relying on
    Elliot v Loake

    Let us see what your defence will be
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Supersaver2017
    • By Supersaver2017 5th Jan 18, 4:33 PM
    • 50 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Supersaver2017
    • #3
    • 5th Jan 18, 4:33 PM
    • #3
    • 5th Jan 18, 4:33 PM
    Hi Beamerguy,

    Thanks for the speedy reply

    What would the new procedure refer to?

    It has provided the particulars of the claim which are as follows:
    The Claimaints Claim is for the sum of £100.....relating to PCN of said car
    28 days to pay but failure to do so
    Interest added to the claim of 8% per annum
    £54 for contractual costs PCN T&C's

    Amount Claimed: 179.90
    Court fee: 25
    Legal rep's: 50
    Total: 254.90
    • Supersaver2017
    • By Supersaver2017 5th Jan 18, 4:37 PM
    • 50 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Supersaver2017
    • #4
    • 5th Jan 18, 4:37 PM
    • #4
    • 5th Jan 18, 4:37 PM
    I have read up for hours on all the Newbies thread, advice from Bargepole and Coupon-Mad etc. I have filed my Acknowledgement today also. So I remain in the process of gathering information for my defence across the many different cases.
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 5th Jan 18, 5:06 PM
    • 2,279 Posts
    • 6,630 Thanks
    bargepole
    • #5
    • 5th Jan 18, 5:06 PM
    • #5
    • 5th Jan 18, 5:06 PM
    The driver on the day had purchased a ticket and had incorrectly entered their registration plate.
    Originally posted by craigmc2109
    It sounds very similar to this case: http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/excel-parking-get-gladstonedby-bw-legal.html, and may even be the same car park.

    Here is the link to the Judgment transcript: nebula.wsimg.com/bfcdd95c68b82bcc6b68408a75d23021?AccessKeyId=4CB8F 2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

    Your defence should be built around that.
    Last edited by bargepole; 05-01-2018 at 5:16 PM.
    Speeding cases fought: 24 (3 of mine, 21 for others). Cases won: 20. Points on licence: 0. Private Parking Court Cases: Won 33. Lost 10.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 5th Jan 18, 5:10 PM
    • 9,520 Posts
    • 9,301 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #6
    • 5th Jan 18, 5:10 PM
    • #6
    • 5th Jan 18, 5:10 PM
    Is your computer playing up Mr C or is it mine, that link goes nowhere.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 5th Jan 18, 5:13 PM
    • 7,569 Posts
    • 10,084 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #7
    • 5th Jan 18, 5:13 PM
    • #7
    • 5th Jan 18, 5:13 PM
    I have read up for hours on all the Newbies thread, advice from Bargepole and Coupon-Mad etc. I have filed my Acknowledgement today also. So I remain in the process of gathering information for my defence across the many different cases.
    Originally posted by craigmc2109
    Bargepole above has probably given you the best
    comparitive case to yours ..

    Note: It is the BWLegal bunch again
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 5th Jan 18, 5:14 PM
    • 7,569 Posts
    • 10,084 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #8
    • 5th Jan 18, 5:14 PM
    • #8
    • 5th Jan 18, 5:14 PM
    Is your computer playing up Mr C or is it mine, that link goes nowhere.
    Originally posted by The Deep
    It's the Judgment transcript link
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 5th Jan 18, 5:17 PM
    • 2,279 Posts
    • 6,630 Thanks
    bargepole
    • #9
    • 5th Jan 18, 5:17 PM
    • #9
    • 5th Jan 18, 5:17 PM
    Is your computer playing up Mr C or is it mine, that link goes nowhere.
    Originally posted by The Deep
    It works if you take out the http://
    Speeding cases fought: 24 (3 of mine, 21 for others). Cases won: 20. Points on licence: 0. Private Parking Court Cases: Won 33. Lost 10.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 5th Jan 18, 5:22 PM
    • 7,569 Posts
    • 10,084 Thanks
    beamerguy
    It works if you take out the http://
    Originally posted by bargepole
    Nope

    This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 5th Jan 18, 5:27 PM
    • 2,279 Posts
    • 6,630 Thanks
    bargepole
    OK, go to this page: http://www.parking-prankster.com/case-law.html, and click on the case reference CS033
    Speeding cases fought: 24 (3 of mine, 21 for others). Cases won: 20. Points on licence: 0. Private Parking Court Cases: Won 33. Lost 10.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 5th Jan 18, 5:30 PM
    • 7,569 Posts
    • 10,084 Thanks
    beamerguy
    OK, go to this page: http://www.parking-prankster.com/case-law.html, and click on the case reference CS033
    Originally posted by bargepole
    Perfect
    Works via PP
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Supersaver2017
    • By Supersaver2017 5th Jan 18, 6:02 PM
    • 50 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Supersaver2017
    Thanks so much guys, I'll try and get a rough copy of my defence up tonight. Much appreciated to you all for helping and in future posts.

    A major point is I do not have the ticket to prove that it was purchased on the day, would this not then be a reputable point?
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 5th Jan 18, 6:11 PM
    • 9,520 Posts
    • 9,301 Thanks
    The Deep
    I wonder what costs were awarded for that claim? I looks like the PPC acted unreasonably in bringing it imo.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Supersaver2017
    • By Supersaver2017 5th Jan 18, 7:47 PM
    • 50 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Supersaver2017
    Draft Defence
    What do you guys reckon to this for a start? Going to amend this a few times before sending...

    Statement of Defence

    1. The Particulars of Claim do not disclose any reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and as such, are an abuse of the court’s process or otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings. The particulars fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction 16, paragraphs 7.3 – 7.5 by failing to provide a copy of the contract or details of any agreement by conduct. The particulars also fail to describe how the amount claimed has been calculated.

    2. The particulars fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction 16, paragraphs 7.3 – 7.5 by failing to provide a copy of the contract or details of any agreement by conduct

    3. Practice direction 22 para 3.1 sets out who may sign a statement of truth. 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’.

    4. The claim is signed by ‘BW Legal’. This therefore does not comply with the requirements.

    5. The claim arises from the Claimant issuing an invoice or ‘Parking Charge Notice’ for £100 to the Defendant’s vehicle xxxxxx on xx/xx/2014. The defendant has from the outset denied any liability in respect of the claim and has repeatedly requested that the Claimant provide evidence of any legal basis to their claim which the Claimant has to date failed to do.

    6. The Claimant has, since June 2014, subjected the Defendant to a barrage of letters, demanding ever increasing sums of money but refused to respond to reasonable requests to provide the evidence necessary to support their claims (see emails/letters. These letters have often misrepresented the legal process, in attempts to threaten and intimidate the Defendant into paying the amount demanded. The Claimant is a serial litigator and the issuing of this Claim without any legal basis appears to be another attempt to intimidate the Defendant, who does not have the legal expertise of the Claimant, into paying an unsubstantiated charge. 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 escalating a £1.00 parking fee into a demand for £254.90.

    7. The Claimant has further failed to comply with Practice Direction by refusing to respond to the Defendants request to use an independent form of dispute resolution.

    8. As a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), Excel Parking are able to access registered keeper details from DVLA. However, IPC membership requires Excel to comply with their Code of Practice which they have failed to do with respect to their signage in this case. Excel have previously been suspended by the DVLA from accessing registered keeper details due to failure to comply with the Code of Practice.

    9. It is denied that the Claimant is the landowner of the land in question or that they have any other right or proprietary interest in the land.

    10. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that they were at the time of the alleged event in possession of sufficient authority to issue parking charges and issue enforcement proceedings in their own name and can demonstrate a clear chain of authority from the landowner.

    11. In the absence of strict proof, I submit that the Claimant has no case and invite the court to strike the matter out.

    12. If the court is minded to accept that the Claimant has standing, then I submit that the signage at the site at the time and date of the alleged event was insufficient to reasonably convey a contractual obligation and also did not comply with the requirements of the IPC Code of Practice to which the Claimant was a signatory at the time. The signage was inadequate in terms of the following:
    • Lack of illumination of signage (and the car park), poor visibility
    • Lack of clarity and prominence of terms and conditions
    • Illegible text due to font size, density, colour and complexity
    • Large numbers of confusing and conflicting signs, including signs from other parties, such that it was not clear which signs had precedence
    • Lack of relevant terms and conditions, such as the fees for parking
    • Inadequate positioning of signs, at unsuitable heights

    13. As the Claimant failed to make reasonable efforts to make the terms and conditions of the car park clear and prominent, particularly during the hours of darkness, it cannot be assumed that anyone entering the car park was immediately aware of, and agreed, the terms and conditions. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the Defendant saw, read and agreed the terms upon which the claimant is relying on the night in question.

    14. In the absence of any signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract, the Claimant has no case, and as such, the court is invited to dismiss the claim.

    15. Even had the terms and conditions been sufficiently prominent, terms which are unfair are not legally binding. Terms which are considered unfair include requiring any consumer who fails to fulfill his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation. It is also unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for breach of contract. A charge of £100.00 for failing to pay a sum of £1.00 which was not prominently displayed in the first place can be considered a disproportionate sum.

    16. It is anticipated that the Claimant may seek to rely on the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Parking Eye v Beavis. This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis as Excel Parking have not demonstrated any commercial justification for the amount being charged and the wording of the notices was not clear, and a comparison should not and can not be made between the supreme and county court.

    17. The Claimant is attempting to claim additional charges such as legal costs of £50.00. The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. Furthermore, legal costs cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court and should be struck out as unrecoverable.

    18. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not been complied with. The keeper can only be held liable if the claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements. The Claimant has not established whether the Defendant was the driver on the day in question and have not clarified whether they are pursuing the Defendant as Keeper or as Driver.

    19. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all his assertions

    20. Considering all the above circumstances, I respectfully ask that the court dismiss the claim.

    I believe the facts stated in this defence are true
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Jan 18, 12:03 AM
    • 58,576 Posts
    • 72,079 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You need to remove this repetition:

    1. The Particulars of Claim do not disclose any reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and as such, are an abuse of the court!!!8217;s process or otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings. The particulars fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction 16, paragraphs 7.3 !!!8211; 7.5 by failing to provide a copy of the contract or details of any agreement by conduct. The particulars also fail to describe how the amount claimed has been calculated.

    2. The particulars fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction 16, paragraphs 7.3 !!!8211; 7.5 by failing to provide a copy of the contract or details of any agreement by conduct

    8. As a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC),
    Wrong company name, above.


    And I would remove this, because that's asking for trouble! Supreme Court decisions are binding on the lower courts (but only in a case of similar facts):
    and a comparison should not and can not be made between the supreme and county court.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Supersaver2017
    • By Supersaver2017 6th Jan 18, 8:27 AM
    • 50 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Supersaver2017
    Thanks Coupon-mad, appreciate your input. I will edit and re-post very soon. Overall would you say these are valid points of defence and then to research/collate information on each point when this goes to court?

    Are Excel Parking Services no longer members of the IPC?
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 6th Jan 18, 8:41 AM
    • 577 Posts
    • 680 Thanks
    claxtome
    Are Excel Parking Services no longer members of the IPC?
    No they are still members.
    What Coupon-mad was pointing out is the acronym IPC stands for International Parking Community not Independent Parking Committee
    https://theipc.info/aos-members/e
    Last edited by claxtome; 06-01-2018 at 8:44 AM.
    • Supersaver2017
    • By Supersaver2017 6th Jan 18, 5:15 PM
    • 50 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Supersaver2017
    Well another letter came today guys.....informing me I have now received the court claim paper's (thanks for that!)
    The later stages they 'may' enter a CCJ against me if no reply is given but I've ever so kindly been given the offer to pay The £255 in full!!! No thankyou.

    Does anyone else have any pointers or input on my defence please? I'll make the amendments given above. Thanks to all thus far for any help given and your valuable time/knowledge.
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 6th Jan 18, 9:42 PM
    • 1,353 Posts
    • 2,712 Thanks
    Lamilad
    As you are using PoFA in your defence, I take it you have never revealed who was driving in any of your previous correspondence with Excel?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

284Posts Today

3,525Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Ah these care free days of watching #ENG score 5 goals in the first half of a World Cup match. It reminds me of... Never.

  • Then it should be. It's not some accident. It's deliberate grappling https://t.co/UxVTuUSNio

  • Penalty yes but time someone was sent off for these wrestling moves #WorldCup

  • Follow Martin