BW Legal county court claim Options

[hyperr]

I received a letter from BW Legal attached below.

It was a parking ticket issued in April. I have since received many debt collection letters to which i have ignored and then i got sent the letter below


Ive acknowledged the ticket online and i have found this defense and was wondering how suitable this will be.:

“
In the County Court
Between:
BW LEgel
V
XXXXXXXXXXX




Claim Number: XXXXXXXX




I, XXXXXXXXXXXXX, deny I am liable to the Claimant for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

• This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017). As an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.



a. There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.
b. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.
c. The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.
d. The Claim Form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.
e. The Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. These documents, and the ‘Letter before County Court Claim’ should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre Action Conduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to “take stock”, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction. Again, this totally contradicts the guidance outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), the aims of which are:

i. ‘early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute
ii. enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure
iii. encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue) and
iv. support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided.’
f. The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as disclosing no cause of action and having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.
g. Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;

i. Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
ii. A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
iii. How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
iv. Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
v. Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
vi. If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
vii. If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed.
h. Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.
• The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions.

Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible £242.76 for outstanding debt and damages.
• The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 'legal representative’s (or even admin) costs’ were incurred.
• This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied 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 (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. As far as I can ascertain, based upon the very vague particulars of claim and complete lack of evidence and photographs, and without having been furnished with the alleged signage 'contract', none of this applies in this material case.
• In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

a. The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.
b. In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.
c. Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

i. Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
ii. No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
iii. The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
d. BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

i. the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
ii. the sum pursued exceeds £100.
iii. there is / was no compliant landowner contract.
• No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
It is believed National Car Parks limited do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.
• The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.
• The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.
• Due to the length of time, the Defendant has little to no recollection of the day in question. It would not be reasonable to expect a registered keeper to be able to recall the potential driver(s) of the car over 6 months later. In any case, there is no such obligation in law and this was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by parking expert barrister and Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, who also clarified the fact that registered keepers can only be held liable under the POFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument.


The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

• Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 18th October 2018.
• Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut-and-paste 'Particulars' of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.



I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.

This post has been edited by hyperr: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 21:16

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Advertisement]

[kommando]

Impossible to say without more details, so without identifying the driver by only referring to them as 'the driver's what caused the invoice to be issued and post redacted NTK keeping dates on view.

[hyperr]

Im afraid, I cant seem to find the NTK and the reasoning for the invoice was the driver often uses a this car park but forgotten on this occasion to buy a ticket.

Sorry for the vagueness, ive not had any experience writing anything like this, so im not sure what else i need to include

[Redivi]

The Claimant is National Car Parks not Civil Enforcement and the claim has been correctly signed

[hyperr]

thank you redivi, i will amend this

[SchoolRunMum]

Looks like you have copied an irrelevant and old defence from at least a year ago.

I'd start again, and look at other BW Legal Defences CURRENTLY being worked on this month. Much more relevant.

Here is one someone has put together on MSE, albeit he/she has described themselves as the registered hirer (no such thing):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...d.php?t=5911678

Do you really believe that a regular user of that car park didn't buy a ticket one day?

This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 23:42

[hyperr]

ok thanks for the response, ill start over since this is outdated, and do some more research, i cant seem to delete this post.

[nosferatu1001]

You cant delete posts, all you can do is edit them (for a limited time)