County Court Business Centre, BWLegal and Premier Park |
County Court Business Centre, BWLegal and Premier Park |
Sat, 28 Dec 2019 - 14:44
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 49 Joined: 19 May 2017 Member No.: 92,075 |
Dear all - I was away on holiday for the last ten days and on returning home today, I found a letter dated 18 December addressed to me from the County Court Business Centre.
This relates to a PCN on a car from April 2018. The PCN was ignored and currently, it appears, that Premier Park through BW Legal have gone to the county court business centre. I have gone through some of the forum posts and understood that the first thing I needed to do was acknowledge the service - I HAVE DONE THIS. I understand that the next step is for me to form a defence and send it via email rather than the website (I understand that the website messes up the formatting). What I don't know is whether I request for a SAR. Circumstances of the incident: The driver parked the car in a car park and to the best of his knowledge he paid for the parking. Unfortunately, the driver no longer has proof of parking. A PCN was received which was ignored and then a reminder was issued. This was followed by a couple of letters from BW Legal and then the current County Court Business Centre letter. I will have a look and do a rough draft but if I am missing something significant, please let me know. Also any advice on whether to request a SAR would be helpful. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 28 Dec 2019 - 14:44
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sat, 28 Dec 2019 - 15:23
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 49 Joined: 19 May 2017 Member No.: 92,075 |
Also -
Amount claimed = 172.26 Court Fee = 25.00 Legal Representative's Cost = 50.00 Total amount = 247.26 |
|
|
Sat, 28 Dec 2019 - 17:26
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,900 Joined: 16 Jul 2015 Member No.: 78,368 |
How is the £172.26 made up, are they claiming for legal/dept collectors?
|
|
|
Sun, 29 Dec 2019 - 11:14
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 49 Joined: 19 May 2017 Member No.: 92,075 |
The 172.26 is divided into 112.26 "being monies due from the defendant to the Claimant in respect of a PCN issued on XX/YY/ZZZZ at XX:YY:ZZ: at ABS (ANPR)" and 12.26 from statutory interest and then £60.00 contractual costs pursuant to PCN Terms and Conditions.
Hope this helps. |
|
|
Sun, 29 Dec 2019 - 15:57
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,900 Joined: 16 Jul 2015 Member No.: 78,368 |
These contractual costs could be an abuse of process and some courts as in other threads are striking the claims out.
It may be a avenue to quote. Regulars will comment on this. |
|
|
Sun, 29 Dec 2019 - 18:25
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 49 Joined: 19 May 2017 Member No.: 92,075 |
Thanks - will wait for the experts to comment.
|
|
|
Tue, 31 Dec 2019 - 07:27
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 647 Joined: 10 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,458 |
PP usually chase the RK using POFA. Therefore the maximum they can claim is £100! PP&BWL always try it on in case you are stupid enough to pay it.
If you think you might not have all the required documents then request a SAR. At the same time point out their error re POFA and that you will make the court aware of this should they foolishly decide to proceed. |
|
|
Sun, 26 Jan 2020 - 13:49
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 49 Joined: 19 May 2017 Member No.: 92,075 |
MY RESPONSE:
In the County Court Business Centre, Northampton Claim No.: XXXXX Between XXXXX (Claimant) and XXXXX (Defendant) __________________________________________________ _________________________ Defence Argument 1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident. 2. The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained. a. The Claimant did not identify the driver b. The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach. c. The Claimant's demanding letter failed to evidence any contravention or clear/prominent signage 3. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it being 172.26. This appears to be an added cost with no reason and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows. a. 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. 4. The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist a. The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read, it is only visible on foot and not in direct line of site meaning you have to go out of your way to look for the sign 5. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established. a. In Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 EGLR 154, it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach when unable to fully comply with the terms 6. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided. a. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt. b. The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred. 7 The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. a. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action. b. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. c. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. d. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action. e. On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.’ f. On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were efficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out. Please help and thanks in advance. I would value suggestions before I submit it today as I guess the deadline is today. |
|
|
Sun, 26 Jan 2020 - 20:19
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 647 Joined: 10 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,458 |
Looks ok. You have covered the main points.
|
|
|
Sun, 26 Jan 2020 - 20:33
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 49 Joined: 19 May 2017 Member No.: 92,075 |
Thank you. Unless anyone else comments I will submit in an hour. Thanks so much.
|
|
|
Tue, 28 Jan 2020 - 13:32
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Next time
Dnot give people one day - less - to respond UYou cannto do that, not uif you want any real help. MSE Forum -> Parking -> NEWBIES thread -> Post 2 You MUST read this to understand what is going on, and the next steps. If you dont do this, and you get something wrong, you can lose instantly. No ifs, buts, second chances, you lose. I mean READ it. All of it. The most critical steps are the DQ and the deadline for the WS |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Wednesday, 17th April 2024 - 10:31 |