Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Private Parking Tickets & Clamping _ PCN - National Car Parks Limited (NCP)

Posted by: Ermac Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 11:31
Post #1402232

Hello good people,

Here I am again asking for your advice. Back in June I entered one of NCP's car park in Wolverhampton. I've been there for 11 minutes and 29 seconds and I did not leave my car. Couple weeks later I got my Parking Charge Notice for this "Crime", asking me to pay 60 pounds or 100 after 14 weeks "discount" period.

A few weeks later I got "Keeper Liability Notice" letter informing me that I have 14 days to pay 100 pounds or this case will be forwarded to Debt Collector Company.

I know I am here in wrong and I should've buy the ticket but at the time I was there with my mentally ill friend, we had a cigarette and by the time I realised I don't have change, I left the car park.

Until now I did not do anything about this and I know I should've appeal. I just couldn't get my head around with my current family problems and 12 hours shifts at work.

What are my chances of getting away from paying this fine?

Could you please advise?

 

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 11:41
Post #1402234

Firstly edit your post NOW to refer to the Driver only as 'the driver.

'The keeper' is now getting invoices.

Posted by: Ermac Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 12:00
Post #1402237

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 12:41) *
Firstly edit your post NOW to refer to the Driver only as 'the driver.

'The keeper' is now getting invoices.


Sorry I am not sure what do you mean. I am only quoting what is on the actual letters.

Posted by: Jlc Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 12:36
Post #1402253

QUOTE (Ermac @ Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 13:00) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 12:41) *
Firstly edit your post NOW to refer to the Driver only as 'the driver.

'The keeper' is now getting invoices.


Sorry I am not sure what do you mean. I am only quoting what is on the actual letters.

Along with who was driving... But I don't think a makes a lot of difference since they are relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act to pursue the keeper anyway.

Bottom line is that they would have allowed 10 minutes grace period to leave without raising a charge.

11 minutes breaches this - but there's still an argument that you did not accept the offer and left.

They aren't particularly litigious but have raised a few claims recently. Await their next move - you can ignore 'debt' collector letters.

Posted by: Ermac Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 18:26
Post #1402380

QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 13:36) *
QUOTE (Ermac @ Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 13:00) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 12:41) *
Firstly edit your post NOW to refer to the Driver only as 'the driver.

'The keeper' is now getting invoices.


Sorry I am not sure what do you mean. I am only quoting what is on the actual letters.

Along with who was driving... But I don't think a makes a lot of difference since they are relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act to pursue the keeper anyway.

Bottom line is that they would have allowed 10 minutes grace period to leave without raising a charge.

11 minutes breaches this - but there's still an argument that you did not accept the offer and left.

They aren't particularly litigious but have raised a few claims recently. Await their next move - you can ignore 'debt' collector letters.



I take it you suggest not to pay and to wait?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 26 Jul 2018 - 06:48
Post #1402487

Yes, thats exactly what they said to do.

Posted by: Ermac Fri, 5 Oct 2018 - 22:06
Post #1422697

Hello everyone,

I've received a letter from NCP saying that my account has been passed to their legal team and another letter from bwlegal instructing me to pay within next 16 days or else they'll take me to the court.

What do you advise would be best thing to do now?

 

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 07:20
Post #1423193

No, the letter from BW legal does not they WILL take you to court. Try reqading it again, more carefully this time. No skimming.

Give that *exact* letter appears on dozens of threads - including the 16 day deadline that is a complete give away - what do YOU htink yo ushould do, based onthe other threads you have looked into?

Posted by: Ermac Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 06:46
Post #1434588

Hello again,

Now I've got Letter of Claim from BWL and I am wondering if I have any rights to defend this. I did park there for 11 minutes and 29 seconds which exceeds the grace period by 1 minutes and 29 seconds. I simply didn't pay because I had no change. I got distracted and as soon as I realised I have no change I left the car park.

The original NCP notice contains photographic evidence recorded by ANPR camera. The letter from BWL is missing solicitors signature and the evidence (not sure if they must provide it again). Apart from this BWL was harassing me with phone calls few times a week (not sure who gave them my number).

Since I know I am guilty my question is do I have to pay or is there any way to dodge this?




Posted by: Jlc Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 10:27
Post #1434602

It's in the roboclaim queue. A claim will likely follow.

So you've had this letter for almost a month and done nothing? You should have used the enclosed forms.


There's no such thing as 'guilty' - but I'd still defend it on the basis that you could not comply with the contract on offer and left, i.e. there was no contract.

It would be good to see the signs - the £60 additional charge can easily be challenged.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 13:39
Post #1434666

LIterally every thread says not to give aweay the drivers identity, yet you keep on doing it

Respond to the LBC, same as you see in every thread
PRepare for a claim, as it WILL happen, and do so by reading around.

Posted by: Ermac Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 19:02
Post #1434739

It says about it does not makes a lot of difference who was driving since they are relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act to pursue the keeper anyway.


Here is my response to BW legal which I am planning to send them via email.


Dear BW Legal,

I am in receipt of your Letter of Claim, dated .

I dispute your claim as the driver did not enter the contract with your client NCP.

I require NCP to send me the following information/documents:
- How the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated?
- Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which authority to bring the claim is asserted, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1;establishing yourself as the creditor.
- Provide me a map showing where any signs were displayed, including those upon entering the business park where the alleged contravention took place and the details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed).

Yours faithfully, (etc etc)


Thank you in advance!

Posted by: Jlc Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 20:20
Post #1434755

They don't have to calculate the charge. (ParkingEye v Beavis)

And they are BPA members and not IPC.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 20:26
Post #1434757

QUOTE
... did park there for 11 minutes and 29 seconds


But no, the driver didn't park there at all, let alone for those minutes/seconds. That was the alleged total in-out driving time. And might well not be reliable either.

And the BPA CoP says the grace period must be a MINIMUM of ten minutes, not a MAXIMUM and a meeting in 2015 decided to increase that to eleven minutes (and the BPA then hoped everyone had forgotten that and never updated the CoP).

Do you have Google location on your phone, with data from that day to disprove the fake 11 mins 29 seconds timing that they are alleging from their unsynchronised system?




Posted by: Ermac Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 01:56
Post #1434799

Does the below looks better?

QUOTE
Dear BW Legal,

I write in response to your "letter of claim" dated xxx xxx xxx, the contents of which are noted. As registered keeper I dispute your claim as the driver did not enter the contract with your client NCP.

As the pre action protocols expect us to exchange sufficient information to understand each others position please forward to myself the original parking charge notice and a map showing where any signs were displayed, including those upon entering the business park where the alleged contravention took place and the details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed) as well as the operators contract which allows them to operate at the site (or indeed confirmation they own the land in question).

As well as the information already requested please answer the following questions :-

Who contravened your rules?

Who you are pursuing?

Have you followed the rules laid down in the Protection of freedoms act 2012 schedule 4?

How is the £60 extra made up ?

Not only will this information help comply with the pre action protocols it will also help achieve the over riding objective.

Having done some research on your claims I request that if you ignore my requests for information that your claim complies with

CPR 16

Contents of the claim form
16.2
(1) The claim form must –
(a) contain a concise statement of the nature of the claim

Contents of the particulars of claim
16.4
(1) Particulars of claim must include –
(a) a concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies;

Practice direction 16

Other matters to be included in particulars of claim


7.5 Where a claim is based upon an agreement by conduct, the particulars of claim must specify the conduct relied on and state by whom, when and where the acts constituting the conduct were done.


CPR 22

Documents to be verified by a statement of truth
22.1
(1) The following documents must be verified by a statement of truth –
(a) a statement of case


Practice direction 22

Who may sign the statement of truth
3.1 In a statement of case, a response or an application notice, the statement of truth must be signed by

(2) the legal representative of the party or litigation friend.

3.7 Where a party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth on his behalf. The statement signed by the legal representative will refer to the client’s belief, not his own. In signing he must state the capacity in which he signs and the name of his firm where appropriate.

3.9 The individual who signs a statement of truth must print his full name clearly beneath his signature.

3.10 A legal representative who signs a statement of truth must sign in his own name and not that of his firm or employer.


Practice direction 7E

Signature
10 Any provision of the CPR which requires a document to be signed by any person is satisfied by that person entering their name on an online form.


I await your response.

Yours sincerely

I've checked my Google timeline and it's all over the shop



Also if they take me to the court do I need a solicitor with me?

Posted by: Jlc Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 08:18
Post #1434800

QUOTE (Ermac @ Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 01:56) *
Also if they take me to the court do I need a solicitor with me?

No, not worth the cost - you can't (normally) claim the cost.

Posted by: Ermac Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 19:04
Post #1434947

QUOTE
Thank you for contacting BW Legal.

Your email has been received and will be dealt with as soon as possible.

Before we are able to reply we need you to confirm a few Data Protection Questions which we have specified below.

If your email does not contain the below information, we kindly request you resend your email with the required information to enable us to deal with your query effectively.

BW Legal Reference:
Full Name:
First Line of Address:
Postcode:
Date of Birth:
Telephone Contact Number:
Authorised Email address:

Confirmation you wish for us to correspond with you via this address (Yes/No):

We make no commitment to response times on this general email account. Therefore, if you consider your matter is urgent, or should you wish to discuss your account with one of our helpful representatives today, you can call our offices on 0113 323 1784 and we will be happy to help.

Please be advised that our standard opening hours are:

Monday - Thursday
8am – 8pm
Friday
8am – 7pm
Saturday
9am – 1pm

Alternatively, you can also manage your account online by utilising our customer portal at www.bwlegal.co.uk and clicking on the customer login link to set up your account online. Our Customer Portal provides you with the functionality to speak to us by webchat, raise a query, complete your income and expenditure, make a payment or set up an affordable payment arrangement at your convenience.

BW Legal does not accept service of any court documents at this email address. Service of any court documents can be sent to disputeresolution@bwlegal.co.uk with the name of the court document in the subject header, followed by the parties names [eg: Witness Statement: ABC v XZY].

BW Legal

The above address is the office of BW Legal Services Limited (t/a BW Legal) which is a company registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No: 07966978. BW Legal is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (569773).

Authorised and Regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority in respect of consumer debt collection under Reg No: 619068

Copyright in this message and its attachments remains with us. Their contents are confidential and may be legally privileged. They are intended solely for the person to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender, and delete the message from your system immediately. You must not read, copy or use the contents of the email nor disclose it or its existence to anyone else.
Please note that communication by email is not guaranteed as 100% secure. If you wish to guarantee confidentiality, we recommend the use of personal delivery or fax communication. We do not accept responsibility for loss of confidentiality arising from use of email.
Although we have checked this email for viruses, it is not guaranteed to be virus free and it is your responsibility to scan the message and attachments prior to opening them.
We do not accept any responsibility for the consequences of passing on any virus.


What are your thoughts about the above automatic reply?

Posted by: Ermac Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 18:10
Post #1438016

BWL response to my email.

QUOTE
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 487 043


Kind Regards,
bwlegal

Posted by: ostell Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 18:27
Post #1438024

Point out to them that they have agreed that you are being pursued as the keeper but then they have erred in the penultimate paragraph by assuming that you were the driver rather than the keeper. As the keeper you could not have agreed to the T&C's as you did not have sight of the sign. Also POFA 4 (5) limits the summ that the keeper is liable for to the amount of the original PCN. Could they advise why they believe that POFA does not apply to their clients.

Posted by: Redivi Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 18:47
Post #1438034

Would they also explain why they believe that CPR 27.14(2) and the Solicitors Code of Conduct Chapter 11 IB 11.8 does not apply to a charge that their previous correspondence has stated to be Legal Costs ?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 29 Nov 2018 - 10:11
Post #1438179

Also how do they explain how a odcument that is legally priviliged can be adduced into evidence? Or is the teaboy who wrote this template response unaware of what the term "legally privileged" actually means?

Posted by: Ermac Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 12:53
Post #1443152

Here is BWL's reply. What do I say to that?

QUOTE
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 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

Posted by: ostell Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 13:04
Post #1443159

"Terms and Conditions (of the parking contract) which were accepted by you in the course of staying at the car park."

But you point ut to them that you did not stay in the car park and therefore did not agree to any additional charge whatsoever.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 13:49
Post #1443177

I would ask them again which teaboy wrote this particular mash up of a response?

Firstly, you note that they still have not explained how the contract can be legally privileged, when it was not communication between them and their client
Secondly, you note their contention that they are following POFA in holding you, the keeper, liable, but that they MISREPRESENT to the consumer that you are liable for more than this; the driver may have accepted certain terms and conditions, but that is irrelevant. The POFA, whcih you claim to be following, does not allow for more than the sum on the NtK to be recovered. £60 is clearly not the amount on the NtK, and so cannot be recovered. In addition, you require an explanation of how they think they can recover these costs when they are specifically prohibited unde the CPR27.14(2)(g)

You require a reponse within 14 days.

Posted by: Ermac Mon, 31 Dec 2018 - 08:21
Post #1446438

Good morning everyone, I hope all of you had a lovely Christmas with your families and you received some nice gifts.

This Christmas I've got my very first ever Claim Form followed by a letter from BWL. I've registered on moneyclaim.gov.uk and I am able to view my claim there but I did not select any action yet before I ask for your advice. Since the claim issue date is 20th of December and it's already 31st shall I start AOS to buy some more time or would it have negative impact on my case?

What happens if I select 'start defence'? Will I need to put my defence in there straight away?

Posted by: Redivi Mon, 31 Dec 2018 - 08:49
Post #1446440

We always advise to acknowledge service immediately
This is especially true at this time of the year

The task may be forgotten or the password lost

You dispute all of the debt
You do not dispute jurisdiction - it' means the England & Wales County Court System, not its Post Office at the Northampton

Do not put anything at all in the defence box

You won't use Moneyclaim to submit the defence anyway

As an aside, NCP has been very reluctant to take cases to court but we've seen two or three claims recently

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 1 Jan 2019 - 20:57
Post #1446718

No,response to the response you hopefully sent above?
It won't look good in court

Posted by: Ermac Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 13:51
Post #1448085

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 1 Jan 2019 - 20:57) *
No,response to the response you hopefully sent above?
It won't look good in court


No, I did not bother replying to them as I got the court papers literally couple days later.

Posted by: Ermac Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 14:08
Post #1448088

I acknowledged of service.

QUOTE
Particular of Claim:
The Claimant's Claim is for the sum of £242.88 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for a parking contravention which occurred on 00/06/2018 in the private car park/land located at xxx xxx xx in relation to a vehicle, xxxxx xxxx xxx registration mark xxxxxx.
The Defendant was allowed 28 days from the PCN Date to pay the PCN, but failed to do so.
Despite demand having been made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.
The Claim also includes Statutory Interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum (a daily rate of £0.04 from 00/06/2018 to 00/12/2018 being an amount of £7.xx.
The Claimant's claiim includes £60.00 costs as set out in the Terms and Conditions.


The points for my defence are:

  1. The driver left the site without payment therefore no breach was made.
  2. There is no maximum grace period set by BPA therefore 11 minutes 29 seconds was reasonable.
  3. ANPR cameras may be couple minutes of out sync (proof?)


Draft of Defence

QUOTE
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, Defendant’s vehicle left the site without payment after 11 minutes and 29 seconds.

3.1. At the material time, the Claimant operated strictly subject to the British Parking Association ('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 Claims for the sum of £242.88 seems to be extremely high considering POFA4 (5) which said: Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle

(5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)© or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).

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

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 23:28
Post #1448275

I would say this, instead of your version (can you not prove time on site, from Google location or dashcam or anything?):

QUOTE
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.



And remove/change this, because you are saying here with your choice of wording, that the Claimants were compliant!!

QUOTE
At the material time, the Claimant operated strictly subject to the British Parking Association ('BPA') CoP, which said: Grace Period:


NONO.

Something like this would be better:

QUOTE
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



And I see nothing in your defence about 'no landowner authority' (always a good safety net in all defences v PPCs) and nothing about the signs. Was it at night/bad weather & awful visibility? Say so in your defence, if so.

And this is weak compared to defence examples we usually see, that explain that the added charges were not incurred/paid and that such 'double recovery' is an abuse of process:
QUOTE
The Claimant’s Claims for the sum of £242.88 seems to be extremely high

Posted by: Ermac Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 17:56
Post #1453483

Ok how does it look now?

QUOTE
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.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 11:55
Post #1453651

Interest is fine
So is the £50 to file the claim
No other solicitor or debt collection costs allowed

Posted by: Ollyfrog Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 12:13
Post #1453655

Sorry I can't help other than with picking these up:

inicial = initial

standard format is £217.88 not £217,88


Posted by: Redivi Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 12:18
Post #1453658


4. The Claimant’s representatives, BW Legal Ltd, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 to £217,88.

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. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the £60 additional charge, previously described by BWLegal as initial legal costs, has not been incurred
b. Even if it has been incurred, BWLegal is well aware that CPR 27.14(2) does not permit such legal costs to be recovered in the Small Claims Court
c. 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.

5 The Defendant asserts that it is an abuse of process for the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.
The Defendant invites the Court use its case management powers in accordance with CPR 3.3(4) to strike out the claim

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)