Mostly LOST case— (Premier Park & BWlegal for ANPR overstay)

BWLegal have sent me their response to my defence:


Our Client: Premier Park Limited
Contravention Type: Over Stay
Car Park: xxxx
(ANPR) Vehicle Registration: xxx
PCN Number: xxxx
Balance Due: £24x.xx



We write with reference to your defence which states your reasons for disputing our Client's Parking Charge Notice (PCN). We have set out our Client's position below in response to your defence.

Background

On xxxxxxxx (Contravention Date), we are instructed that you were registered keeper and/or the driver of a vehicle bearing the registration mark xxxxxxx, (Vehicle) which was parked on private land (i.e. xxxxxxxx (ANPR)) (Car Park).

The Car Park is private land, operated and managed by our Client. Any motorist's use of the Car Park is on the basis of the displayed contract terms and conditions, with the motorist legally obliged to make themselves aware of the terms and conditions at the time of parking.

Core Terms and Conditions

The terms and conditions, as displayed throughout the Car Park, were breached. The enclosed photographs taken by the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras shows your Vehicle entering the Car Park at xxxx and exiting at xxxxx. These images show that you breached the terms and conditions as you had exceeded the maximum stay period. As a result of the breach, our Client is well within their contractual rights to issue the PCN and take all necessary steps (including bringing legal proceedings) to recover the outstanding charge.

Response to your Defence

The Claim Form was not correctly filed under the Practice Direction. It was not signed by a legal person.

The Claim Form has been signed by our firm's Supervising Solicitor, and therefore this element of your defence bears no relevance.

It is denied that a contract existed.

Upon entering the Car Park, the signage in situ (i.e. the "offer") made clear the terms and conditions associated with parking on the private land. By your action of entering our Client's Car Park, and remaining there in excess of the 10 minute grace period, it is our Client's position that your actions were tantamount to an acceptance of the terms and conditions. It is our Client's positon, therefore, that you did enter into a contract with our Client, and are therefore liable for any consequences of breaching the same. If you did not agree to the terms and conditions, you should have vacated the Car Park within the grace period. You evidently did not do this.

The signage in situ is clear and unambiguous in that the maximum stay period is 2 hours. The signage also makes clear that should you enter or park in this Car Park contravening the terms and conditions, you are agreeing to pay the £100.00 PCN. As the enclosed photographs show, you had exceeded the maximum stay period. You breached the terms and conditions and, therefore, our Client is satisfied that you remain liable for the PCN.

The signage is in a font which is too small to read from a passing vehicle. The signage cannot create contract.

As stated above, the signage in situ is clear and unambiguous, and you have not provided any evidence to the contrary. At the time of the contravention, our Client was a member of the British Parking Association ('BPA'). The BPA is a professional association that represents the entire parking sector across the UK, representing 710 member organisations in the parking and traffic management profession. The BPA provide an Approved Operator Scheme ('AOS') which serves the purpose of an Accredited Trade Association to a fifth of its membership, the private parking companies that manage parking on private land. As our Client was an established member of the BPA at the time of the contravention, it had to adhere to the BPA's Code of Practice for Private Enforcement on Private Land and Unregulated Car Parks. This Code of Practice gives recommendations in regards to the signage within the Car Park. The signs within the Car Park fully comply with the recommendations outlined in the Code of Practice and are therefore deemed reasonable.

The relevant Code of Practice also makes clear that a period of 10 minutes must be given to allow motorists to consider the terms and conditions of the private land on which they are to park. Please note that a grace period is not a period of free parking, but a period of consideration. You were therefore given the opportunity to read all of the terms and conditions outside of your Vehicle. Consequently, it is irrelevant as to whether the terms and conditions could be read from a passing vehicle.

The particulars of claim fail to identify a cause of action. It therefore fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction 16. The particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed.

Our Client's position is that CPR 16.4 (in relation to Particulars of Claim) has been complied with. As the claim was issued online using Money Claim Online, under paragraph 4 (1) PD 7E - Money Claim Online, our Client's claim meets the conditions for starting a claim using MCOL. Under paragraph 5.2(1) and (2)(b) PD 7E, our Client's particulars of claim were included in the online claim form, however, it had to comply with the restrictions of having only 1080 characters to set out its particulars. Our Client relies on paragraph 5.2A PD 7E which states: "The requirement in paragraph 7.3 of Practice Direction 16 for documents to be attached to the particulars of contract claims does not apply to claims started using an online claim form, unless the particulars of claim are served separately in accordance with paragraph 5.2 of this practice direction." For the reasons set out above, there has been no breach of the PD 16 or CPR 16. In any event, our Clients' particulars are clear and concise, and you are put to strict proof to the contrary.

Our Client must prove that they have sufficient proprietary interest in the land.

Our Client is engaged by the landowner/lawful occupier of the Car Park to manage and enforce the parking conditions in situ, and is therefore able to manage the Car Park, issue PCNs and enforce them.

It is denied that our Client is entitled to the sum claimed. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) states the maximum sum that may be recovered is that stated the Notice to Keeper. The Claim has been artificially inflated by adding costs of £60.00. Administration costs cannot be recovered. Judges have dismissed cases for the costs claimed.

This Claim is not an abuse of process. The PCN charge is regarded as a charge for contravening the terms and conditions. The sum payable following the issue of the PCN occurs on the happening of a specific event (i.e. a material breach of the terms and conditions) and is therefore a core term of our Client's contract with you. It is irrelevant whether or not the charge as displayed bears any relation to the cost for parking (even where there is no cost involved). Our Client relies on the leading authority of ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the Supreme Court held that PCN charges, like this charge, serve a legitimate commercial interest. The relevant car parking Codes of Practice, also give guidance that £100.00 is a reasonable sum to charge.

The signage in situ also 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. You have therefore not been misled. 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. Consequently, the sum claimed is not unconscionable and is not an attempt at double recovery.

Our Client has offered to contract with you, providing a limited contractual license to use the Car Park on the basis of the specified terms and conditions. Our Client has provided their end of the bargain by permitting your Vehicle to park on private land. Following your breach, our Client is simply enforcing the terms and conditions in relation to that breach.

Our Client's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating and misleading.

You breached the terms and conditions by exceeding the maximum stay period. Therefore, a PCN was issued. Following our Client issuing the PCN, you had an initial period from the date of the PCN to pay the sum due. At different stages, our Client has written to you setting out the basis upon which the PCN has been issued and the steps you were required to take next. All correspondence issued as been in attempt to resolve the matter amicably, and has not been issued to be intimidating. Given that you failed to exploit the opportunities provided to settle the matter, and to pay a reduced amount, our Client is well within their rights to pursue you for the full amount of the PCN, including its debt recovery costs. The Claim does have merit and, under the circumstances, our Client's course of action has been entirely reasonable.

In respect of the contents of your Defence, it is apparent that a large amount of the information contained therein has simply been 'copied and pasted' from an external source, we see on a regular basis. Large portions of your Defence are nonsensical. In consideration of the circumstances of this individual matter, your defence is entirely irrelevant and fails to explain why you exceeded the maximum stay period.

Irrespective of the large volume of nonsensical content within your Defence, given that the same is endorsed by a statement of truth, coupled with the fact that the content is evidently copied, your Defence cannot possibly be deemed within the scope of your own knowledge.

Notwithstanding the procedural issues set out above, you have tendered no evidence in support of your position. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence in support of your allegations, our Client's position remains unchanged to that which has previously been set out to you.

The evidence held in our Client's favour supports the logical conclusion that you exceeded the maximum stay period. Therefore, your breach of the terms of the contractual licence affording you permission to occupy the land in question [the Car Park] is unequivocal.

In consideration of the above, it is our Client's position that your Defence is no more than a 'copy and paste' exercise to obscure legitimate proceedings for recovery of sums which are contractually owing.

What to do next

Our Client is willing to resolve matters with you on an amicable basis, however, this is contingent on you making immediate arrangements to repay the outstanding balance due within 14 days.

We can confirm your options for repayment are as follows:

• Payment in full as a lump sum. And so on

__________________________


I have read https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=64350585&postcount=2
and will be sorting all this out.

I post this here for any further comment and advice in respect of what I have been sent.

I am referred to as having done a lot of things. However I am contacted only as the registered keeper…
I have never had sight of any signature in correspondence! Just a printed stamp. The only thing that may have been signed is the claim to the Court which I have not had sight of.
Reference is made to nonsensical content I see. Somewhat troublesome in the light of advice offered.

Any further advice gratefully appreciated as ever.

Obviously slightly miffed that on the same circuit as previous dismissals before court I am required to attend!