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
    • youdontsay
    • By youdontsay 5th Feb 18, 6:19 PM
    • 81Posts
    • 60Thanks
    youdontsay
    Six year old ticket
    • #1
    • 5th Feb 18, 6:19 PM
    Six year old ticket 5th Feb 18 at 6:19 PM
    About a week ago I received a claim form telling me I was about to be taken to court for a ticket I allegedly received 6 years ago., and that £262 is payable by me.This was the first knowledge I have of this and have no recollection of it even happening.
    Over the last week I have scoured the internet and have read lots of advice I believe Im more limited as to what I can do because Excel who operate the car park are not a member of the BPA?
    I have also been to the Citizens advice bureau who I believe said that I was limited as to what I can do because court proceedings are already in the pipeline.
    I am quite frantic as I cannot pay this amount and even this morning as I was again searching on this site and various others, I received a letter from BW Legal who represent Excel to say I will be going to court.
    I rang BW legal to request the evidence and they have instructed me to contest the claim due to having no knowledge previously, and also to request the evidence myself.
    I think the most likely scenario is that the car may have been driven in and straight back out without parking as very few people use this particular car park as it is widely known in the area for its unfair practices.
    I have written the letter and sent it today, but is there anything else I should have done in order to get this turned around?
    The letter was worded as follows
    'I received a claim form from Northampton Courts approx a week ago, stating that I was being taken to court for an alleged parking offence. This is the first knowledge I have of this as the parking ticket was nearly six years old. There is an issue with postal services as there is a house nearby which has practically an identical address but, having scoured the internet for advice on this matter, I understand that there should have been many steps prior to this action, and I fail to believe that all correspondence would have gone astray. I request that you send me the evidence that you hold which has led you to believe a parking offence has been committed, without which this issue cannot go forward. Please send me the necessary evidence. Thank you'
    The date of the ticket was 12th Feb 2012, so actually just under six years.
    Last edited by youdontsay; 05-02-2018 at 10:32 PM. Reason: Wording error
Page 4
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 6th Feb 18, 10:46 AM
    • 8,706 Posts
    • 9,307 Thanks
    pappa golf
    remove you details above , I I suspect a printed or complete PDF N9 will take president over an email

    please remove your details above
    Save a Rachael

    buy a share in crapita
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 6th Feb 18, 10:59 AM
    • 8,706 Posts
    • 9,307 Thanks
    pappa golf
    I have now succeeded in speaking to the courts and done all the above The person confirmed that a note has been applied to file etc etc

    The deadline as confirmed by them is 14th Feb

    Many thanks to everyone for your help, I will await further instructions

    What a night! Didnt get to bed until 2am trying to sort this out but it looks as if Im in a better position now thanks to the help of people here. I am grateful, still a bit panicked, but grateful.
    Originally posted by youdontsay

    BW got a personal mention in the parliamentary debate last week . now you see why?

    please be carefull , people should not need to contact you by personal message (or the email addy you posted) , if so THINK why?

    everything can be done on this thread , beware strange folk in messages , they speak with fork tongues
    Save a Rachael

    buy a share in crapita
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Feb 18, 1:09 PM
    • 57,327 Posts
    • 70,925 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I will await further instructions
    Now you have a week to read some BW Legal defences like yours, and copy one & adapt it. You won't receive anything to prompt you to defend.

    Easier than you think. Search the forum for 'BW Legal defence' and copy a recent one, after reading a few to get the hang of who it needs to look.

    Bargepole explains in his link in the NEWBIES thread post #2, that a defence is a document to set out in Times New Roman 12 font, with 1.5 line spacing (get some help from a techy relative or youngster is need be!). Headings (court, claimant, defendant, claim number) must be as shown in the example defences on here.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 06-02-2018 at 10:04 PM.
    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.

    • youdontsay
    • By youdontsay 6th Feb 18, 6:52 PM
    • 81 Posts
    • 60 Thanks
    youdontsay
    Six year old ticket
    This is the first draught of a letter which I consider sending in my defence. Im unsure if all the content applies to my case as, try as I might, I dont understand a lot of what is being said in the sample letters as I am very unfamiliar with legal jargon



    'The first correspondence I have received from the client was from the courts as a Claim Form, roughly a week ago. This was the first time I have ever been contacted in regards to this incident. The alleged incident took place almost six years ago and I have no recollection of this. There is an issue with our mail deliveries as there is a residence nearby with practically an identical address as myself. However, upon receiving the Claim form, I have sought advice online and believe that there would normally have been lots of steps prior to the Claim form being sent out. Given that non-delivery of mail, with the purpose of making people aware of the serious implications of non-contact with your client, in my opinion should surely be sent via Signed For delivery.

    However the fact remains that until roughly a week ago I had no knowledge of the proceedings being made against me by your client due to no error on my part.

    However, your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and, again, fails to provide the photographic evidence which I would need. It does not even say what the cause of action is. Nor does it contain any mention of what evidence your client intends to rely on, or enclose copies of such evidence.


    This action on the part of your client is a clear breach of its pre-action obligations set out in the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct, with which as solicitors you must surely be
    familiar (and with which your client, a serial litigator of small claims, must also be familiar). As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction binds all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time.

    Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction.

    I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:


    1. an explanation of the cause of action
    2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
    3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
    4. what the details of the claim are (how long the car was parked))
    5. a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim
    6. a copy of any alleged contract with the driver
    7. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
    8. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed
    9. If they have added anything on to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.



    I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

    If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012]
    EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) !!!8211; Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16. I will draw to the court the fact that I have expressly requested this information in early 2017, yet your client has yet to provide it.

    Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to
    it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.'


    Your client must know that on 01 October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. Since proceedings have not yet been issued, the new protocol clearly applies and must be complied with.

    Your letter lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order your client to comply with its pre-action obligations, and when costs come to be considered.
    Last edited by youdontsay; 07-02-2018 at 8:43 AM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Feb 18, 10:03 PM
    • 57,327 Posts
    • 70,925 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You are not at the stage of sending anything to BW Legal. So you should not have been reading the example letters, you needed to read further down to the defences in the NEWBIES thread.

    As I said, you have a week to adapt a DEFENCE (emailed to the CCBC), not a letter:
    Now you have a week to read some BW Legal defences like yours, and copy one & adapt it. You won't receive anything to prompt you to defend.

    Easier than you think. Search the forum for 'BW Legal defence' and copy a recent one, after reading a few to get the hang of who it needs to look.

    Bargepole explains in his link in the NEWBIES thread post #2, that a defence is a document to set out in Times New Roman 12 font, with 1.5 line spacing (get some help from a techy relative or youngster is need be!). Headings (court, claimant, defendant, claim number) must be as shown in the example defences on here.
    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.

    • youdontsay
    • By youdontsay 7th Feb 18, 8:40 AM
    • 81 Posts
    • 60 Thanks
    youdontsay
    Six year old ticket
    I seem to spend endless hours here and possibly reading the wrong posts. Im not going to pretend that I understand it as it all sounds very alien, I feel I havent got a clue what Im doing Most of the defences I read probably dont apply to me as I cant give any details about what happened on the day in question as it was so long ago. Im at the stage of thinking it would be way easier to pay up Im saying this with all due respect to those who give their time and expertise to help people here but it feels like Im looking for a needle in a haystack.
    • waamo
    • By waamo 7th Feb 18, 8:46 AM
    • 3,180 Posts
    • 4,207 Thanks
    waamo
    You have plenty of time yet. Giving up now would be premature to say the least. Not being able to remember the details is a good defence.

    They cannot rely on POFA so challenge why they have issued a claim against you. What evidence do they have that you were the person driving? It is not unreasonable that you do not know.
    This space for hire.
    • waamo
    • By waamo 7th Feb 18, 8:53 AM
    • 3,180 Posts
    • 4,207 Thanks
    waamo
    There is a good one here. Just adapt it a little.

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5768956
    This space for hire.
    • EggBasket
    • By EggBasket 7th Feb 18, 12:18 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    EggBasket
    This thread is painful to read. These claims are very easy to defend against; I did it myself with zero legal experience.

    Just search for 'Defence' on this board, find one, and change the details to suit your case. It actually requires very little effort.

    If you actually decide to pay these scammers, you might as well just flush some cash down the toilet while you're at it.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 7th Feb 18, 12:58 PM
    • 2,430 Posts
    • 2,980 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Its completely easy to defend it, as its so long ago none of their arugments work. There is NO chance the keeper is liable, meaning theyre up a creek.

    You dont HAVE TO REMEMBER TEH DAY - you just make them *prove their case* and thats what the defences do.

    Dont give up. Post 2 of the newbies thread. Read it slowly, in chunks. You cannot do it in one go.
    • youdontsay
    • By youdontsay 7th Feb 18, 1:19 PM
    • 81 Posts
    • 60 Thanks
    youdontsay
    Six year old ticket
    I have tweaked this one from the post Ive been directed to Im unsure whether all this applies to my case, especially points 6, 9 and 10. Thanks to all who take time to help me

    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/2012. The defendant received no correspondence in respect of the claim and has 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 failed to provide the evidence necessary to support their claims. 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 making a demand for £262.50.

    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 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 £129.00. 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
    • waamo
    • By waamo 7th Feb 18, 1:56 PM
    • 3,180 Posts
    • 4,207 Thanks
    waamo
    6,9 and 10 look fine to me. You are asking where their authority to issue tickets comes from. Did they have a contract that enabled them to peruse tickets to court at the time?

    Some landowners have a no court stipulation in their contracts so they need to demonstrate the relevant permission.
    This space for hire.
    • youdontsay
    • By youdontsay 7th Feb 18, 2:30 PM
    • 81 Posts
    • 60 Thanks
    youdontsay
    Six year old ticket
    This thread is painful to read. These claims are very easy to defend against; I did it myself with zero legal experience.

    Just search for 'Defence' on this board, find one, and change the details to suit your case. It actually requires very little effort.

    If you actually decide to pay these scammers, you might as well just flush some cash down the toilet while you're at it.
    Originally posted by EggBasket
    Sadly, these tickets are not the only thing we have going on in our lives, for most people it will be one of a number of difficult issues that we are dealing with and fires that we are trying to put out.

    Yes it makes it all the worse the fact that these people deliberately set up 'honey trap car parks' for no other reason than to make easy money out of people who can ill afford it.

    But I feel its a fairly human response to smart at the idea of having to sift through, albeit very helpful, information, in order to gain absolutely nothing, but simply to prevent losing a lot (money that is) And being honest about the feelings surrounding it isnt such a bad thing, IMHO.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 7th Feb 18, 2:45 PM
    • 9,203 Posts
    • 8,968 Thanks
    The Deep
    BWL were singled out in the HoC last week as being in league with the scamming parking companies. AAn MP has reported them to thee SRA so there is a possibility that they may lose their licence.

    Watch this

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    and send a very robust letter of complaint to your MP.,
    Last edited by The Deep; 07-02-2018 at 3:58 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 7th Feb 18, 7:27 PM
    • 17,562 Posts
    • 27,763 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Sadly, these tickets are not the only thing we have going on in our lives, for most people it will be one of a number of difficult issues that we are dealing with and fires that we are trying to put out.
    We all have our crosses to bear. Come and walk in my shoes!

    Despite our crosses, we are passionate about this stuff, and give our all to complete strangers, in an attempt to help them beat a scam being visited on them - not on us - because most regulars are far too wise to all of this and won’t be caught out by scammers.

    But we can only lead the horse to water .............!
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Feb 18, 8:18 PM
    • 57,327 Posts
    • 70,925 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Sadly, these tickets are not the only thing we have going on in our lives, for most people it will be one of a number of difficult issues that we are dealing with and fires that we are trying to put out.
    Tell me about it...try to walk in my shoes right now...
    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.

    • youdontsay
    • By youdontsay 8th Feb 18, 7:53 AM
    • 81 Posts
    • 60 Thanks
    youdontsay
    Six year old ticket
    Having read extensively, watched the parliamentary debate on this subject, and sifted through many defences written by people way cleverer than me, I arrived at the above defence (#72)

    Most of you will have seen the original of this one Im certain, so probably wont need to read through the whole thing, but if someone could advise me as to whether this would be suitable, I would be very grateful.

    Do I need to add the fact that I had no word of this incident until nearly 6 years after it occurred, or is that in the defence but Im not recognising it due to legal jargon?

    Also I just need to ask, by what method do I actually send this to the courts? I have been in touch with the courts to say my defence is on the way, thanks to advice given here

    I believe it would be by email, with a reference in the subject area stating the claim number and my name.

    I apologise if Im asking unreasonable questions or appearing to be very stupid, but I dont have a huge amount of time and researching is sandwiched, as it is for all of us, between keeping all the usual balls in the air, work etc etc.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 8th Feb 18, 11:14 AM
    • 7,143 Posts
    • 6,599 Thanks
    KeithP
    Here's a post I wrote on another thread late last night:


    The full email address is: ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

    But wait for others to comment on the content.
    Last edited by KeithP; 08-02-2018 at 12:23 PM.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Feb 18, 8:13 PM
    • 57,327 Posts
    • 70,925 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    IN THE COUNTY COURT
    CLAIM NO. XXXXXXX
    BETWEEN:
    EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LIMITED
    Claimant

    and

    XXXXX XXXXXXX
    Defendant


    Statement of
    DEFENCE




    1. This claim purports to relate to a parking charge relating to an identified vehicle in 2012. As the registered keeper of that vehicle, the Defendant has no knowledge of any 'parking charges' and received no correspondence at all until this sudden claim. The Defendant has no idea of the circumstances or contravention alleged, and the Claimant has given no explanation for the lack of previous correspondence, nor has the Claimant supplied photographic or other evidence.

    1.1. The Particulars of Claim do not fail to disclose any reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and as such, are an abuse of the court 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 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.

    1.2. The alleged incident pre-dates the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4), before which there was no lawful route to hold a registered keeper liable for the actions of an unidentified driver.

    1.3. 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.

    1.4. 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.

    2. The particulars fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction 16, paragraphs 7.3 and 7.5, by failing to provide a copy of the alleged contract (presumably, signage terms from 2012). or details of any agreement by conduct

    3. Practice direction 22 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''. The claim is signed by ''BW Legal''.

    4. The Claimant's solicitor, BW Legal, is a notorious, serial 'robo-claim' firm, whose cosy relationship with various rogue 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 also been named and shamed by MPs on several occasions, regarding their predatory and aggressive business practices, woeful signage and lack of evidence of any agreed contract.

    4.1. 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 £262.50.

    5. The claimant may seek to rely on the case of Parking Eye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('Beavis'). This claim can be easily distinguished from Beavis, which was dependent upon an un-denied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the unusually compelling legitimate interests of the landowner (at that location only) in encouraging a turnover of free parking spaces. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice was paramount, and Mr. Beavis was the admitted driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85. 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.

    5.1. Further, in Beavis at the Court of Appeal stage, the Judges held the case of a free licence to park under certain conditions, was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic transactional disputes. Parking charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers and this claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found were still a relevant and adequate test in less complex cases.

    6. 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.

    6.1. 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.

    6.2. 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.

    7. No evidence has been supplied to demonstrate that the Claimant is/was the landowner of the land in question, or that they have/had any other right, standing or proprietary interest in the land on the material date. 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.

    8. 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.

    8.1. 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.

    8.2. 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.

    9. The Claimant is attempting to claim additional charges such as legal costs of £129.00. 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. The additional sum claimed for interest is an insult to justice and evidence of the Claimant's wilful and vexatious abuse of the court process, given that this Claimant has waited almost six years to contact the Defendant.

    10. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed. 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 believe the facts stated in this defence are true.


    signed


    date
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 08-02-2018 at 9:18 PM.
    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.

    • Redx
    • By Redx 8th Feb 18, 8:43 PM
    • 18,096 Posts
    • 22,880 Thanks
    Redx
    that last post is corrupt , possibly macOS ?

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5790496
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
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

154Posts Today

2,545Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin