Court Claim Form from PCN 2 Years ago?, Desperately need some advice to get rid of Britannia Parking for good& Options

[StaffsJay]

Good Morning Guys & Girls,

Totally new to the forum but I have tried to have a quick search through other posts to see if I can find out the answers that way but I can't see anything obvious so I really hope you guys can give me some advice. Bit of an essay but bare with me!

A couple of days ago I received a Claim Form from BW Legal via the Online Money Claim site & Northampton Court. This form is on behalf of Britannia Parking requesting £252.22 for a parking ticket that I'm alleged to not have paid £1 for in 15/09/2016. I have not received any other correspondence from BW legal as I moved house about 6 months ago so any mail sent there is returned to sender. It is only by sheer chance that I was visiting the address (my parents house) and decided to open a couple and found this.

To give you a bit of background on the story; I visited a carpark in Stafford and I stayed there for 30mins (literally picking something up from Argos and that was it). I actually bought a parking ticket however for whatever reason when I keyed in my registration, one or two digits were missing from the end. I then recieved a letter from Britannia Parking a few weeks later. I actually contacted Britannia at that point via their website and appealed the PCN also including a copy of the actual ticket which is where I noticed part of my reg was missing. I didn't obviously notice it at the time of purchase because I was rushing and I am still adamant it was displayed on the screen when i keyed it in.

A few weeks later I got another letter from Britannia advising that they were satisfied that I had bought a ticket and that my appeal would be upheld/PCN cancelled. This was back in 2016.

I kept the original ticket and the response letter safe since then until I recently moved house and now I have no idea where it is, possibly even shredded and sods law I get this letter through which states that I failed to pay, failed to settle my outstanding liability and adding on Interest charges from then so that it looks as follows:

(Original ticket price was around £1 just for reference)

Charge: £100
Interest from 15/09/16 - 23/01/2019: £17.22
Contractual Costs pursuant to PCN Terms & Conditions: £60

So for the court -
Amount claimed : £177.22
Court Fee: £25
Legal Rep: £50

Total Amount: £252.22

So that’s my story. I’m honestly not sure how best to proceed, obviously I need to submit my defence but where does it end? Will I get another company coming after me for the same thing later down the line?

I’m going to be writing to my local MP but don’t expect to hear a response and also have a word with C.A.B. Just wondered if you have any suggestions as to what I can put in my defence?

I was going to go in with something along the lines of “the operator is required to have transparent, fair and professional procedures including manual checks to identify minor infringements. I require that the operator provides the Court with a copy of their policy and proof that those checks were made in this instance. Further, I require proof that ''wrong VRN' is in fact incorporated into the contract from the landowner as a penalty-generating 'contravention' since I find it highly unlikely that the retailer/landowner allows this unfair fining of paying customers.
2.6 By creating the Code the parking industry has set out the minimum standards by which you will be judged by anyone coming into professional contact with you. Members of the public should be able to expect that you will keep to the law, and act in a professional, reasonable and diligent way.

2.9 The Code and its appendices cover the operation of parking on private, unregulated land. This includes:
• designing and using signs
• using ANPR and associated systems
• appropriate parking charges.

And in the ANPR section:

21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action.

To any right-minded person's viewing, ignoring an upheld appeal from a genuine parking customer who did pay and display is neither 'professional and reasonable' nor 'diligent'. Their own ANPR records show that there was no vehicle on site with the VRN I accidentally keyed in and as evidence, I was originally able to produce the ticket as proof that I paid but either myself or the machine made an inadvertent error with the VRN, thereby showing that THIS ticket did relate to THIS vehicle and no other in the car park.

I submit that it was clear that it was not 'appropriate to take action' so the PCN should have been cancelled when I was successful in my original appeal. I submit that to pursue a genuine customer who paid & displayed is contrary to the wishes of the landowners and this PCN is unauthorised. As such, the parking charge cannot be considered 'properly given' at the point of inappropriately ignoring my original appeal or refusing this appeal.”

This above is taken and amended slightly from a similar situation on money saving expert but as it is an old thread im not sure how well it would stand up today?

Thanks in advance!!
Jay




This post has been edited by StaffsJay: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 - 10:54

[Advertisement]

[StaffsJay]

But don't the two Excel cases support your rebuttal of EvL??

They do...hence why i said would the case itself be enough or is it worth keeping them in and just adding a bit more info.

[Albert Ross]

1. I am xxxxxx the Defendant in this matter and litigant in person, and the registered keeper of the vehicle in 2016.
1a The Particulars of claim make no distinction whether the claim is against the Driver or the Keeper of the Vehicle.

it is not unusual for the firstborn to be named after their Parent. Britannia should not assume that the Keeper appealed

3. The event in question occurred over 29 months ago and was successfully contested by the Defendant – the registered keeper of the vehicle. The cancellation of this PCN was then confirmed in writing by Britannia Parking Group Limited at that time.

3. The event in question occurred More than two years ago and was successfully contested by the driver – the registered keeper of the vehicle. The cancellation of this PCN was then confirmed in writing by Britannia Parking Group Limited at that time.

5 The claimant may seek...
I think this is a rebuttal to know and rebut after exchange of witness statements to narrow the issues.

9. As above, the Defendant who is the registered keeper the Driver has already successfully contested this PCN directly with Britannia Parking Group Limited on the grounds that a ticket was purchased by the Driver of the vehicle on the date in question. This ticket included a typing error in the registration field, abbreviated hereafter as 'VRN'. The dispute was upheld on the grounds that a ticket was bought and paid for in good faith and could not possibly have belonged to any other vehicle using that facility on the date in question. This was acknowledged by Britannia Parking Group Limited on or around 10/10/2016.

His Honour Judge Moloney refused to award solicitor costs in the test case Parking Eye v Beavis & Wardley.

Parkingeye use an inhouse Solicitor Whose job was to issue claims, whereas here BW Legal are a registered legal company. But the further Sixty pound charge is arguable as too are the interest claimed.

[cabbyman]

But don't the two Excel cases support your rebuttal of EvL??

They do...hence why i said would the case itself be enough or is it worth keeping them in and just adding a bit more info.

You need to lead the judge by the hand towards the conclusion you want. IMHO, it would really help that process if you get a bit more detail about those cases. If, at the hearing, you are challenged about how they support your EvL contention, you need to be able to explain it. Otherwise it's 'ah...umm....Not quite sure, Sir, but they sounded good!'

However, see what others say.

This post has been edited by cabbyman: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 - 21:17

[StaffsJay]

1. I am xxxxxx the Defendant in this matter and litigant in person, and the registered keeper of the vehicle in 2016.
1a The Particulars of claim make no distinction whether the claim is against the Driver or the Keeper of the Vehicle.

it is not unusual for the firstborn to be named after their Parent. Britannia should not assume that the Keeper appealed

3. The event in question occurred over 29 months ago and was successfully contested by the Defendant – the registered keeper of the vehicle. The cancellation of this PCN was then confirmed in writing by Britannia Parking Group Limited at that time.

3. The event in question occurred More than two years ago and was successfully contested by the driver – the registered keeper of the vehicle. The cancellation of this PCN was then confirmed in writing by Britannia Parking Group Limited at that time.

5 The claimant may seek...
I think this is a rebuttal to know and rebut after exchange of witness statements to narrow the issues.

9. As above, the Defendant who is the registered keeper the Driver has already successfully contested this PCN directly with Britannia Parking Group Limited on the grounds that a ticket was purchased by the Driver of the vehicle on the date in question. This ticket included a typing error in the registration field, abbreviated hereafter as 'VRN'. The dispute was upheld on the grounds that a ticket was bought and paid for in good faith and could not possibly have belonged to any other vehicle using that facility on the date in question. This was acknowledged by Britannia Parking Group Limited on or around 10/10/2016.

His Honour Judge Moloney refused to award solicitor costs in the test case Parking Eye v Beavis & Wardley.

Parkingeye use an inhouse Solicitor Whose job was to issue claims, whereas here BW Legal are a registered legal company. But the further Sixty pound charge is arguable as too are the interest claimed.

Thankyou for the suggested edits.

Are you suggesting then that i should maybe keep point 5 out until i have seen their witness statements rather than try and cover bases before they have been presented as i mentioned in Point 7?

Regarding Judge Moloney, regardless of them being registered or not i dont see that they should be entitled to any costs as this case is entirely of their own doing. Had BPGL actually cancelled the PCN or provided this information to BW Legal then it would not be at the stage it is at now, 2 years later. Are there any other examples that could be used better than the PE v Beavis & Wardley as i'm struggling to find them

But don't the two Excel cases support your rebuttal of EvL??

They do...hence why i said would the case itself be enough or is it worth keeping them in and just adding a bit more info.

You need to lead the judge by the hand towards the conclusion you want. IMHO, it would really help that process if you get a bit more detail about those cases. If, at the hearing, you are challenged about how they support your EvL contention, you need to be able to explain it. Otherwise it's 'ah...umm....Not quite sure, Sir, but they sounded good!'

However, see what others say.

Would this then be much more beneficial to me?

**********
5. The claimant may seek to rely on the case of Elliot v Loake and seek to persuade the court that this case created a precedent which amounts to a presumption that the registered keeper is the driver, with no evidence or admission to prove its allegations. In the Elliot v Loake 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 matter.

I would also bring to the courts attention two cases that have occurred since the alleged contravention the Judges ruled Elliott v Loake as not relevant or applicable, (Excel v Mr C C8DP37F1 Stockport 31/10/2016) and (Excel v Mr B C7DP8F83 at Sheffield 14/12/2016).

(Excel v Mr C C8DP37F1 Stockport 31/10/2016 - Representatives of Excel repeatedly claimed that as Mr C was in the car at the time of the event, even if he wasn't driving, he knows who was, and if he's not prepared to name the driver, it's a reasonable inference that he was driving. In this instance they quoted Elliott v Loake as case law. This was dismissed by the Judge as Elliot V Loake is a criminal case, which has no bearing on a civil matter, and in that case Elliot was prosecuted for S.172 of the RTA 1988, which cannot apply here. As Excel did not adduce evidence of the driver, and as Elliott v Loake is not persuasive and can be distinguished, the claim was dismissed.

Excel v Mr B C7DP8F83 at Sheffield 14/12/2016 – Excel, do not use the keeper liability provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, just as Britannia Parking do not in my case. Because of this they attempted to rely on the assumption the keeper was the driver. As the Keeper was not the driver, he elected to offer no evidence, and put the claimant to strict proof. The Judge then made it clear that without proof of driver, and without invoking Keeper Liability, there was no claim against the Keeper and the claim was duly dismissed.

*********

[StaffsJay]

Updated with edits -

****Defence****

Defence

1. I am xxxxxx the Defendant in this matter and litigant in person, and the registered keeper of the vehicle in 2016.
a. The Particulars of Claim make no distinction whether the claim is against the Driver or the Keeper of the Vehicle

2. The claimant states in the Particulars of Claim that a Parking Notice was issued on (15/09/2016)
a. The Defendant denies that a Parking Notice was issued on this date.
b. The Statement of Truth is fatally flawed and the claim should be struck out ab initio
c. The Particulars of Claim do not include any reference number for the Parking Notice or specify the date of the parking event and the Defendant does not consent to an amendment of the Statement of Case.

3. The event in question occurred over 29 months ago and was successfully contested on or around 10/10/2016. The cancellation of this PCN was then confirmed in writing by Britannia Parking Group Limited at that time.

4. The case against the Defendant is based on a purported “reasonable assumption” by Britannia Parking Group Limited and their legal representative, BW Legal, that the keeper was the driver.
PATAS and POPLA lead adjudicator and barrister Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regard to keeper liability; “There is no reasonable presumption in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort.” (POPLA report 2015).

5. The claimant may seek to rely on the case of Elliot v Loake and seek to persuade the court that this case created a precedent which amounts to a presumption that the registered keeper is the driver, with no evidence or admission to prove its allegations. In the Elliot v Loake 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 matter.

I would also bring to the courts attention two cases that have occurred since the alleged contravention the Judges ruled Elliott v Loake as not relevant or applicable, (Excel v Mr C C8DP37F1 Stockport 31/10/2016) and (Excel v Mr B C7DP8F83 at Sheffield 14/12/2016).

Excel v Mr C C8DP37F1 Stockport 31/10/2016 - Representatives of Excel repeatedly claimed that as Mr C was in the car at the time of the event, even if he wasn't driving, he knows who was, and if he's not prepared to name the driver, it's a reasonable inference that he was driving. In this instance they quoted Elliott v Loake as case law. This was dismissed by the Judge as Elliot V Loake is a criminal case, which has no bearing on a civil matter, and in that case Elliot was prosecuted for S.172 of the RTA 1988, which cannot apply here. As Excel did not adduce evidence of the driver, and as Elliott v Loake is not persuasive and can be distinguished, the claim was dismissed.

Excel v Mr B C7DP8F83 at Sheffield 14/12/2016 – Excel, do not use the keeper liability provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, just as Britannia Parking do not in my case. Because of this they attempted to rely on the assumption the keeper was the driver. As the Keeper was not the driver, he elected to offer no evidence, and put the claimant to strict proof. The Judge then made it clear that without proof of driver, and without invoking Keeper Liability, there was no claim against the Keeper and the claim was duly dismissed.

6. The Claimant's solicitors have ignored a request sent by the Defendant on 05/02/2019 explicitly requesting information in the interest of narrowing the topics under dispute, pertinent for the Defendant to consider and construct a formal defence.

7. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action.
The term I believe for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers.
The Defendant has had to cover all eventualities in defending such a 'cut & paste' claim which has caused significant distress and has denied a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.
Therefore, as an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant's case.

8. I am perplexed as to why the Claimant waited this long to bring proceedings, and equally bewildered that the Claimant includes “interest” pre-dating the issue of the Parking Charge Notice. The delay in bringing the claim is of their own making and I therefore dispute the interest claimed.

9. As above, the PCN has already successfully contested directly with Britannia Parking Group Limited on the grounds that a ticket was purchased by the Driver of the vehicle on the date of the alleged contravention. This ticket included a typing error in the registration field, abbreviated hereafter as 'VRN'. The dispute was upheld on the grounds that a ticket was bought and paid for in good faith and could not possibly have belonged to any other vehicle using that facility on the date in question. This was acknowledged by Britannia Parking Group Limited on or around 10/10/2016.

10. According to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 any goods purchased should be 'Fit for Purpose'. The ticket that was issued was not 'fit for purpose'. The Claimant has taken money to issue an invalid ticket and now seeks to charge a penalty of £100 for said invalid ticket. The invalid ticket was issued due to the ticket machine allowing the transaction to complete when an invalid Vehicle Registration Number (VRN) had been entered. The ticket machines should be linked to the cameras and only allow correct details, or offer the nearest match and ask if it is the correct VRN before accepting money.

11. No evidence has been provided that a ticket was not purchased. Photographs of the keeper’s vehicle entering and exiting the car park do not constitute a proven contravention of the parking conditions. No PCN was placed on the vehicle and the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence that a ticket was not on display.

12. 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.. Even if they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "Legal representatives’ costs". These cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court regardless of the identity of the driver.

His Honour Judge Moloney refused to award solicitor costs in the test case Parking Eye v Beavis & Wardley.

13. It is clear BW Legal have altered the claim amount, in this case on their notice of County court claim letter (to be used as an exhibit) there is a breakdown of cost claimed which is completely different to the actual court claim form (also to be used as an exhibit). BW Legal “solicitors costs” appear to have increased from £50.00 to £110.00. The claimant also lists “£60 contractual costs pursuant to PCN Terms and Conditions” as part of the Particulars of Claim. The Notice to Keeper supplied by the Claimant does not list these Terms & Conditions therefore I dispute that a contract could be formed or indeed is in place for the Defendant to be liable. I respectfully suggest that these amounts are erroneous and nothing more than an effort to generate more income and amounts to a penalty which is wholly disproportionate to any alleged loss suffered by the claimant.

14. Additionally, the Notice to Keeper supplied by the Claimant also does not mention their intended use of, or compliance with the requirements of POFA Chapter 4. sections 9(2)(a) – No Period of parking established. Also section 9(2)(e1) or (f) – No keeper liability warning or subsequent right of recovery.

15. Britannia Parking Group Limited are NOT the lawful occupier of the land. Absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant on request, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim. They do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question and they no longer even operate on this site which is now under the control of 'Euro Carparks'. This is possibly due to issues similar to this case. As such, I require that the Claimant produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner, dated and signed accordingly from the date of the alleged offence, to evidence the definition of the services provided. This includes a list of grace periods, charges and all restrictions authorised where a parking charge can arise, as I do not believe they are authorised by the landowner to charge a paying customer for a mere VRN error.

16. The claimant may also seek to rely on the case of Parking Eye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case). This case can be easily distinguished from Parking Eye v 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 location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice was paramount, and Mr. Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85. None of this is applicable to this case. Additionally, of the Beavis case, the Judges held it was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes.

17. If the claimant is permitted to rely on the case of Parking Eye v Beavis; The Claimant and their legal representative should be well aware that the circumstances of the Beavis case were entirely different. In this case, we have an authorised user using the car park appropriately where there has been no loss to the owner and no abuse of a parking space, nor any overstay.

While the courts might hold that a large charge might be appropriate in the case of a 'free stay' car park, essentially as a deterrent to overstaying, there is nothing in the case to suggest that a reasonable person would accept that a £100 penalty is a conscionable amount to be charged for the simple VRN error which was explained and accompanied in good faith at appeal stage, by proof of pay & display and supposedly upheld.

In this case the vehicle would have been fully entitled to park as it did, had the VRN been correctly keyed in (provided that obligation had been clearly brought to the motorist's attention which I also dispute due to poor signage). The justification and 'legitimate interest' that was held to rescue the 'ParkingEye v Beavis' charge is irrelevant and conspicuously absent. The Claimant cannot argue that a 'legitimate interest' exists to punish customers for accidentally inputting a wrong VRN on a single occasion, yet using the car park for exactly the purpose intended and for half of the paid-for time.

The Beavis case is not comparable and does not supersede any considerations of the specific facts in this case. It is certainly likely that the courts would say it is undoubtedly 'unconscionable' to penalise the registered keeper of a vehicle which has been proven to have paid and displayed, at the same level as (for example) a trespasser, who parked all day across two bays without paying any tariff.

This charge issued to me as the registered keeper is clearly capable of being held by the courts as an unenforceable penalty. This view is supported by the judgement of the Supreme Court, which did not disagree with the earlier judgement from the Court of Appeal.

18. As per the original dispute to Britannia Parking: the signage on and around the site in question was not prominent, was unclear at the time with small illegible lettering and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, which at the time of the alleged contravention Britannia Parking was part of BPA and would have had to follow with this code of practice.

Any terms of contract on the signage (wording, clarity and positioning) were insufficient, hence incapable of binding the driver as there was no offer known nor accepted, Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract. The Claimant failed to tell the driver that the ANPR data will be compared to any VRNs input into the Pay & Display machine and will then be used to issue 'parking charges' for any case where there is a VRN omission or error. If the Driver had known this vital fact, perhaps they would have thought twice before inputting the VRN to double and triple check for errors. As the Driver did NOT know this, I, the registered keeper, cannot be deemed bound by the terms. Regardless, as in Defence Point 10: ticket machines should be linked to the cameras.

19. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim are denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all from the Defendant – the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, 2 years after an alleged offence took place and after an initial appeal was successfully upheld by the Claimant.

20. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under CPR 27.14.

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

Signed:



*******************

Going to be submitting this shortly unless anyone has any last minute suggestions? Still not 100% sure whether to include the loake cases just yet as albert mentioned. Is it worth waiting till their WS comes out assuming it doesnt get thrown out before then?

This post has been edited by StaffsJay: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 - 12:18

[cabbyman]

I still think you need to pre-rebut EvL because BWL usually include it in their pleadings, particularly where the PPC's PoFA compliance is weak. The qualifying cases can only support your contention that EvL isn't relevant.

However, if you have time, await comments from others.

When is your defence deadline?

[StaffsJay]

I still think you need to pre-rebut EvL because BWL usually include it in their pleadings, particularly where the PPC's PoFA compliance is weak. The qualifying cases can only support your contention that EvL isn't relevant.

However, if you have time, await comments from others.

When is your defence deadline?

So leave it in then as i have or do you mean do something additional to the above in order to pre-rebut it?

My deadline is today to my calculation

[cabbyman]

I am assuming that they haven't mentioned EvL to you??? That being the case, you are rebutting it before they have a chance to include it!

Leave it as late as you possibly can before you send it so that others may get a chance to comment.

[StaffsJay]

I am assuming that they haven't mentioned EvL to you??? That being the case, you are rebutting it before they have a chance to include it!

Leave it as late as you possibly can before you send it so that others may get a chance to comment.

No mate they haven't but iv seen loads of bw cases where they bring it up so as I mentioned in one of my points, due to the roboclaim nature of the case I'm fully expecting it to arise. So I want to take the proverbial wind out of their sales before they even cast off. Attack is the best form of defence in this scenario I feel?

[StaffsJay]

I am assuming that they haven't mentioned EvL to you??? That being the case, you are rebutting it before they have a chance to include it!

Leave it as late as you possibly can before you send it so that others may get a chance to comment.

Bit of a panic, gone to submit my defence and it is limited to 122 lines?! How do i redact that to 122 lines without missing some of my most vital info!?

To put into context that takes me to half way through point 13?!


**edit*8

Apologies, posted in a bit of a blind panic. Would i be ok to leave the defence box blank, not even press that box and instead scan a signed copy of my defence as a pdf into their email then ring the court first thing in the morning to confirm that they had recieved it and have it added to my claim that way? If i email with my claim number and Defence attached etc?

or do i need to do that and bullet point the defence. Should really have done this earlier but i didnt even consider that there would be a limit

This post has been edited by StaffsJay: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 - 22:04

[Ollyfrog]

You save it as a pdf document and send it via email - make sure you state this is the defence for claim number xxxxxxx

[StaffsJay]

You save it as a pdf document and send it via email - make sure you state this is the defence for claim number xxxxxxx

Haha just edited my post with this, good so that is ok then i will get on that and send it now and ring them in the morning to confirm receipt

[nosferatu1001]

Make sure your PDF has your signature on it

[StaffsJay]

Make sure your PDF has your signature on it

Hey guys, sorry i went so quiet on this post. I was hoping to make my next post one that declares success but im at a loss to whats going on in the process.

I submitted my defence and got the acknowledgement from the court that it was recieved 26/02/19 and i havent heard anything since although i was under the impression that once i submit my defence they had 30 days to respond.

Well as i hadnt heard anything for a while i checked MCOL today to find that there is an update which says "DQ sent to you on 02/04/2019"

So basically it is as follows:
Your acknowledgment of service was received on 30/01/2019 at 16:01:48

Your defence was received on 26/02/2019

DQ sent to you on 02/04/2019

I thought that in order for this to go any further there should be a notice to proceed or something of the like? Honestly don't understand why this case hasnt been thrown out already but it turns out what i thought was the process apparently isnt?!.

Jay

[Redivi]

My understanding is that BWL only sends the Notice of Intend to Proceed to the Court

If you've received a DQ, it means that the Court's received the Notice

There is no chance that the claim will be thrown out until :

1 The Court has received the DQs
2 It's allocated the case to your local court
3 A judge has scanned the papers

Even then, throwing out a claim without a hearing is almost unknown

[Marcel]

Hi
I was searching Google for info and found your topic. I have more or less exactly the same problem now with BW legal. Can you please let me know if you got this resolved? What happened etc? many thanks

[nosferatu1001]

They havent updated the thread in a year, so i woul dsuggest you start a new thtread of your own, and we can try to help you there.