County Court Claim BWlegal/Premier Park Options

[carparkuser]

Currently as far as the N180 form regarding a PCN from Premier Park in 2014 for a vehicle without a permit.

Background (2014):
This was for my place of work where we have parking shared with other offices.
They didn't give us any permits to have on the cars and was parked there for about 5 months without any issues.
The vehicle in question was there before signage went up and Premier Park placed 2 PCNs on it that day in 2014.
I subsequently received a permit to put on the vehicle and didn't receive any more PCNs.
Ignored letters from Premier Park and assumed they'd figured it out as I hadn't heard back in years.

Latest (2019):
Contacted by BW legal with their letters and such and have told them that I have no contract with Premier Park Ltd for any amounts payable.
They've pursued and it looks like we're quite the way down the line now to going to court. The claim seemed very bare and they didn't give any evidence.
So I requested SAR and received it from both BW legal and Premier Park Ltd. BW legal didn't seem to have anything. For Premier Park there is a photo which shows that there is no signage infront of the vehicle. Since 2014 we have moved offices, but I've walked past where it used to be and can see they've put up a sign in front of where the vehicle would have been now.

I'm assuming this should be pretty straightforwards to defend. I had a right to have a vehicle there and there was no signage visible. Planning on being litigant in person, but will be the first time in court. Was there anything I might have to be aware of? People have suggested that I pay the money to avoid the hassle, but I don't think that's right and I am not keen on private parking companies. Any advice would be appreciated
Thanks

[Advertisement]

[nosferatu1001]

So to be clear
On the material day
- the signs went up
- no warning was given
- no permits were issued in advance
- TWO PCNs were issued , for one day? Why two? What reasons were given? EXPLAIN this as it deos not make any sense

The claim does not of course give any evidence, similarly neither does your defence when you file it.

No signage visible? Surely you mean - car was parked BEFORE the signage went up!?

FIrst things first

1) Date of issue
2) Go online and acknowledge TODAY. DO NOT start the defence. DO NOT contest jurisdiction unless you know wha that means.

In your defence how will you prove the right to have a vehicle there, OTHER THAN your witness testimony? Ideally the company would support you

[carparkuser]

Thanks for the response

Car had been parking there for about 5 months before in which no signs were up, no warnings sent to the office, and no permits issued. Think they got sent to the estate agents and they didn't pass them on.

I believe some signs did go up around the car park on or around the date the PCN was issued, but not infront of where the vehicle was parked and only took notice when they put a PCN on the vehicle. So I'm not sure about claiming in my defense that the car was parked before signage. Definitely was parking there before signage though.

First PCN was picked up off the windscreen when I went into work in the morning, noticed a PCN on the car, picked it up to have a look in the office. Then later in the day they put another one on it. Called up estate agents and got the permit later that day.

I assume the right of the vehicle would be that as an employee of a company that has a lease which included parking. Which is made obvious by the fact that the vehicle would have had a permit on it for months after the PCN notice. Will look for a copy of the lease for the office, but I'm almost certain it doesn't say anything about a permit as the signs for it never were there for years before in which the company had a lease.

[Sheffield Dave]

Is it a single court case? What are they claiming for exactly? Is it for two lots of parking charges? What have they added on in the way of extra costs?

Also, was the date on which the claim form was issued more than 6 years after the date of the parking event? Was it 6 years after the date the payment was first due - possibly 28 days after the event?

Presumably you had a pre-existing right to park there granted by your employer based on some deal they made with the landowner / landholder? In which case the signs become irrelevant - you had no reason to enter a contract with the PPC based on the signage as you already had a right to park. Any failure to follow the instructions given by your employer (such as display of permits) is a matter between you and your employer. In any case you were ready and willing to display a permit as a courtesy to the PPC, and the fact that they failed to issue you with one in good time is their problem, not yours.

[nosferatu1001]

It doesnt need to say anything about a permit; if the lease grants a right to park there, then it cant be overridden by a stupid sign.

Tell us the date of issue. Tell us the date of incident. Have you acknowledged the claim yet? answer all quesitons please!

[carparkuser]

@Sheffield Dave It's a single court case. I believe it was for a non display of a permit. (Was meaning to confirm wording last night and didn't get round to it sorry) They're requesting £200 + legal fees. It hasn't been 6 years yet as it was from 2014.
Thanks, I've been reading up on the case laws here: http://www.parking-prankster.com/case-law.html
Guessing technically I'm not the tenant, but an employee of the tenant that has rights to park there? Do you think a statement from the company would suffice?

@nosferatu1001 Sorry! Claim is for March 2014. Haven't had chance to dig through my letters recently, but I believe I've acknowledged and filed a defense and then received the N180?

[nosferatu1001]

OK, so what was your actual defence?
Once you file a copy of the N180 with the C and the original to the court, it gets allocated locally.

SO you should be writing ws, gatehring evidence NOW, in preparation.
But without us seeing yoru one and only defence, its hard to help.
A statememtn from teh company that they had authorised yoru vehuicelt to be their, and they were teh LANDHOLDERS would suffice. I take it they didnt employ the PPC but the landOWNER did? If so the landOWNER likely derogated from the companies lease, as once the land was leased they can do very little to change it.

[carparkuser]

A bit of a late reply sorry, my main defense was that the parking space was already part of the lease agreement with the landowner and that they had nothing to do with it basically. I filed about 100 pages with the company lease agreement and the land registry docs and what I thought were very strong arguments thanks to many of the post from here.

Thought I'd update as I just got a 'Notice of Discontinuance' for my court case with Premier Park Ltd next week.

I assume that means it is all over?
I'm slightly disappointed as I was kind of hoping to get some money out of BW Legal/Premier Park Ltd for wasting so much time in something they didn't have any rights in by going to court. Not that I needed the money, would happily have donated it, I just really dislike how this company operates and how it preys on people for essentially what seems to be a scam.
Will be making sure to follow up that they remove my information in accordance to GDPR at least.

Also just thought I'd just put a thanks out in general to the people on this forum.

[nosferatu1001]

Defence, with a C. UK English please!

Yes, that means the claim is over
Check with the court to make sure THEY have a copy of the notice.

[carparkuser]

Thanks again @nosferatu1001 ! That was a very good point. I called up the court to check and they hadn't received the 'Notice of Discontinuance' the day after I'd received mine, assuming it's because it was posted to the court rather than emailed, like they did with mine. Nonetheless, will stay ready until I hear about a confirmation from the court.

Also noticed the court didn't have my contact details for the remote hearing on file even after I'd contacted them 3 times regarding it, so I'm hoping that is sorted now as well.

[andyep]

Defence, with a C. UK English please!

Really ,pot kettle lol

OK, so what was your actual defence?
Once you file a copy of the N180 with the C and the original to the court, it gets allocated locally.

SO you should be writing ws, gatehring evidence NOW, in preparation.
But without us seeing yoru one and only defence, its hard to help.
A statememtn from teh company that they had authorised yoru vehuicelt to be their, and they were teh LANDHOLDERS would suffice. I take it they didnt employ the PPC but the landOWNER did? If so the landOWNER likely derogated from the companies lease, as once the land was leased they can do very little to change it.

[hcandersen]

So OP, the first time you advised them of your position was recently following which their claim was dropped?

If so, next time if you have a defence don't sit on it for 5 years.

And as for: I'm slightly disappointed as I was kind of hoping to get some money out of BW Legal/Premier Park Ltd for wasting so much time in something they didn't have any rights in by going to court

Are they clairvoyant? How and when did they first become aware that you were entitled to park there?

And as for: I just really dislike how this company operates and how it preys on people for essentially what seems to be a scam.

So if you were still there and regularly came to work but couldn't park because some unentitled person was in your space and you had to the pay to park on the street!!

And: and I am not keen on private parking companies

??

[nosferatu1001]

Andy - I don't have a claim to defend

OP - no, don't sit and wait. Keep calling. If the court don't get notice from the C, the hearing WILL take place.

[carparkuser]

OK double checked with the court today and they said they received the Notice of Discontinuance last week before I'd contacted them, so not sure what was going on with the court the day I contacted them. Guessing things must just be a bit hectic with covid and remote hearings.

@hcanderson
I've had emails with them since last year, BW Legal just decided to take it further given the overwhelming evidence against Premier Park Ltd's claim.
They didn't need to be clairvoyant, they could have realised the same car was parked before they put up any signs and that the car was given a permit after they stuck 2 'PCN's on the windscreen. They could have also checked if they even had the correct rights to enforce parking on that space. In the SAR from Premier Park, I noticed they had cancelled off one of the PCNs, but not the other and then five years later decided to pursue the 2nd 'PCN' from that day.
I'd like to think Premier Park was genuinely looking out for me and my car parking space, but given that they decided to try pursue a case they didn't have, I think it is a fair enough reason not to like them. Also they send a lot of letters on how to pay which I found to be quite irritating.
If I hadn't prepared evidence and had access to the lease agreement it might have been more annoying to defend and I could easily see people paying them just to have them off their backs.

[nosferatu1001]

It could have been recieved on date X, you called on day X+2, but they only processed what it said on day X+3.

[carparkuser]

What issues might there be with requesting the discontinuance to be set aside to ask for costs to be covered as a defendant as they took it until the last minute to issue a discontinuance for a case they didn't have?

Rules & practice directions part 38.6
(1) Unless the court orders otherwise, a claimant who discontinues is liable for the costs which a defendant against whom the claimant discontinues incurred on or before the date on which notice of discontinuance was served on the defendant.

and 44.15
Orders for costs made against the claimant may be enforced to the full extent of such orders without the permission of the court where the proceedings have been struck out on the grounds that –
(a) the claimant has disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the proceedings;
(b) the proceedings are an abuse of the court’s process

Case examples:
Renwick and Mitchell v Markerstudy Insurance Co Ltd (2015)
Edwards v Bristol City Council (2017)
Any other cases out there I should check?

Would be looking to request for:
1. printing costs of the bundle (100 pages x £0.10 = £10)
2. land registry costs in getting documents (£6)
3. time? £95 seemed to be what people have previously requested and received. If I actually requested based on my time and hourly rate I feel like it might sound excessive, even though I did mention this to the claimant previously.
These costs would have arose after my email conversations with them at which point they should have had the information to discontinue the case, but decided to pursue it nonetheless.

[Sheffield Dave]

Unless you can show unreasonable behaviour (a high bar), your costs will be very limited. In particular, you can't claim costs for preparation time. And the £95 is the max for taking time off work to attend court - which you didn't do. Someone else will have to advise you on the mechanics of claiming the costs - I don't know.

[nosferatu1001]

Youve missed that those rules dont apply to small claims track. 27.14(2)(g) is the only way you will get costs. You coudl ask that the hearing, for which the court has had the fee for, is converted to a costs hearing. But you would need to be very, very sure how you will support your costs assessment.

[hcandersen]

They didn't need to be clairvoyant, they could have realised the same car was parked before they put up any signs and that the car was given a permit after they stuck 2 'PCN's on the windscreen. They could have also checked if they even had the correct rights to enforce parking on that space. In the SAR from Premier Park, I noticed they had cancelled off one of the PCNs, but not the other and then five years later decided to pursue the 2nd 'PCN' from that day.

My God, you expect a lot. Keeping records of cars parked..for how long, weeks, months, years?? Maybe keep records of permits on display as well? What about what you should do?

They can cancel a PCN if they wish.

Try looking closer to home for the errors IMO....which I've no doubt won't be universally shared.

[nosferatu1001]

I think expecting them to perform basic diligence over a residential space isnt expecting too much
They know there will be leases