County Court Claim form Excel Parking/BW Legal Options

[madpotter]

I am very worried regarding a County Court Claim Form relating to alleged PCN on the 27/03/2012 at the Walk, Ebbw Vale.
The driver was taking an elderly person with mobility problems to the bank. They parked in a disabled space, clearly displaying the blue badge. The driver did not see anything clearly displayed either at the disabled bays or the entrance to the car park stating that disabled persons now had to pay for parking. As I result the driver and disabled person went straight to the bank (which was closed) and returned within 20 minutes to the car and left for home. The driver had parked there on previous occasions and had no letters or complaints. Had the driver known that a fee applied this would have been paid quite happily as the parking fee was only 20 or 30 pence.
The registered keeper received various letters and as the advice given at the time was to ignore these, this was the action taken. These letters were thrown away when the registered keeper moved house. The registered keeper now has a County Court Claim form sent to their new address, issue date 07/03/2018 and would like advice on how to proceed.
In addition, the County Court is in Northampton, which will be difficult to travel to as the registered keeper has no access to public transport and to go by car is a journey of over 3 hours.
Any help will be appreciated. Thank you.

This post has been edited by madpotter: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 - 19:09

[Advertisement]

[Redivi]

This is a perfect example of why it's important never to throw away any documents regarding a parking notice

BWL likes to issue claims a few days before the six years are up and legal action is statute barred by the Limitation Act

First step is to acknowledge service of the claim
You dispute the whole of the claim
You do not dispute the jurisdiction of the County Court
Do not write anything whatsoever in the defence box
This gives you four weeks to send the actual defence statement

Just to be clear, was the 23rd March the date of the parking or the date the parking notice was issued ?

Northampton Court is the Post Office for claims
Any hearing will be at your local court

Did BWL send a Letter Before Claim recently as required by the Protocol for Pre-action Conduct for Debt Claims ?

Edit your post so it doesn't reveal the identity of the driver

Have a check of the car park signs
Excel and VCS have been known to issue claims for each others car parks

This post has been edited by Redivi: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 - 11:52

[ostell]

Havee you had any conversation at all with Excel or BW Legal? Do they know who was driving at the time? A simple Yes or No only please.

At the time of the parking charge only the driver of the car could be held liable for the charge and the advice at the time was, correctly, ignore. That changed in October 2012 in that the keeper could then be held liable. Your parking predates the new legislation and therefore it is still only the driver that can be held liable in your case. That's why it is important to edit your post so that the identity of the driver cannot be inferred. Use "the driver......" etc.

Could you post up the particulars of claim details from the claim form please.

[Redivi]

I see that the OP's returned to his thread but not answered the questions

If there was no Letter Before Claim, it could be deliberate

BWL might have realised that, if they sent the LBC, the 30 days that they must allow for a reply would take them past the six years deadline

It's certainly a "reasonable belief" that I would be raising in the defence to demonstrate unreasonable behaviour and argue that Excel should be liable for the full costs of the claim regardless of its outcome

This post has been edited by Redivi: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 - 13:32

[ostell]

I believe that being close to the SB date is one of the let outs for not giving 30 days.

[madpotter]

This is a perfect example of why it's important never to throw away any documents regarding a parking notice

BWL likes to issue claims a few days before the six years are up and legal action is statute barred by the Limitation Act

First step is to acknowledge service of the claim
You dispute the whole of the claim
You do not dispute the jurisdiction of the County Court
Do not write anything whatsoever in the defence box
This gives you four weeks to send the actual defence statement

Just to be clear, was the 23rd March the date of the parking or the date the parking notice was issued ?

Northampton Court is the Post Office for claims
Any hearing will be at your local court

Did BWL send a Letter Before Claim recently as required by the Protocol for Pre-action Conduct for Debt Claims ?

Edit your post so it doesn't reveal the identity of the driver

Have a check of the car park signs
Excel and VCS have been known to issue claims for each others car parks

Thank you

The post has been edited accordingly. The registered keeper will follow the advice given and put together a defence. The registered keeper plans to contact BWL to request copies of all documents they mean to rely upon.

The 23rd March was the date of issue and not the date of the parking. The driver is unable to remember the actual date of the alleged parking violation.

BWL did send a letter before claim.

The car park is definitely managed by Excel.

This post has been edited by madpotter: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 - 14:55

[madpotter]

Havee you had any conversation at all with Excel or BW Legal? Do they know who was driving at the time? A simple Yes or No only please.

At the time of the parking charge only the driver of the car could be held liable for the charge and the advice at the time was, correctly, ignore. That changed in October 2012 in that the keeper could then be held liable. Your parking predates the new legislation and therefore it is still only the driver that can be held liable in your case. That's why it is important to edit your post so that the identity of the driver cannot be inferred. Use "the driver......" etc.

Could you post up the particulars of claim details from the claim form please.

Thank you

The post has been edited accordingly.

The answer to the 2 questions in the first paragraph is no in both cases.

Details of the claim are as follows:
Claim is for the sum of 90 pounds being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 27/03/2012 (Issue Date) at 13:50:30 at at Ebbw Vale The Walk Anpr Eps Differential Charge Scheme.
The PCN relates to under registration (car registration).
The terms of the PCN allowed the defendant 28 days from the Issue Date to pay the PSN, but the Defendant failed to do so.
Despite the demand being 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 0.02 from 27/03/2012 being an amount of 43 pounds 42 pence.
The claimant also claims 54 pounds contractual costs pursuant to PCN terms and conditions.

I hope this answers your questions.

I see that the OP's returned to his thread but not answered the questions

If there was no Letter Before Claim, it could be deliberate

BWL might have realised that, if they sent the LBC, the 30 days that they must allow for a reply would take them past the six years deadline

It's certainly a "reasonable belief" that I would be raising in the defence to demonstrate unreasonable behaviour and argue that Excel should be liable for the full costs of the claim regardless of its outcome

Thank you. A Letter Before Claim was received. This was dated 25/01/2018 and stated that if no response was received by 1st March 2018 a claim would be iss ued in County Court without further notice.

I believe that being close to the SB date is one of the let outs for not giving 30 days.

Thank you

[The Rookie]

The person issued with papers is the registered keeper, refer to that person only as that. Please edit accordingly.

[madpotter]

The person issued with papers is the registered keeper, refer to that person only as that. Please edit accordingly.

Thank you - this has been done.

[Redivi]

An obvious defence point is that the particulars of claim disclose no cause of action
They give no clue what the driver is supposed to have done
Ask the court to strike out the claim for these reasons or order BWL to provide Further and Better Particulars of Claim

Did the Letter Before Claim have any more information ?

If I'm reading this correctly, the parking event was 23rd and the parking notice was issued on 27th after Excel couldn't find a record of payment against the registration number
It's not, however, the defendant's job to guess the reason for the claim

Wait for other opinions but it might be better not to request copies of the correspondence

The £54 contractual charge is also ripe for attack
No such figure will be mentioned on the signs and it is very unlikely that Excel has ever paid it

More likely than not, it's a number plucked out of the air to inflate the claim and get around the rule that legal costs can't be recovered in Small Claims Court

[madpotter]

An obvious defence point is that the particulars of claim disclose no cause of action
They give no clue what the driver is supposed to have done
Ask the court to strike out the claim for these reasons or order BWL to provide Further and Better Particulars of Claim

Did the Letter Before Claim have any more information ?

If I'm reading this correctly, the parking event was 23rd and the parking notice was issued on 27th after Excel couldn't find a record of payment against the registration number
It's not, however, the defendant's job to guess the reason for the claim

Wait for other opinions but it might be better not to request copies of the correspondence

The £54 contractual charge is also ripe for attack
No such figure will be mentioned on the signs and it is very unlikely that Excel has ever paid it

More likely than not, it's a number plucked out of the air to inflate the claim and get around the rule that legal costs can't be recovered in Small Claims Court

Thank you
I have looked at the Letter Before Claim and this states at the beginning:

Our Client: Excel Parking Services Ltd Parking Charge Notice (PCN): Camera
Account Number: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date of Contravention: 27 March 2012
Vehicle Registration: xxxxxxxxxxxxx Balance Due: 144:00
Contravention Description: Parking without displaying a valid ticket/permit.
Contravention Location: Ebbw Vale The Walk Anpr Eps Differential Charge Scheme

It goes on to state "We have been instructed by Excel Parking Services Ltd to commence legal action in the form of issuing a claim against you in the County Court in respect of the above debt. "

I do not know whether this discloses the cause for the action making it difficult to use no cause of action as a defence.

The letter also gives an estimated claim stating that their legal action may make me liable for court fees, solicitors' costs and statutory interest. They broke that estimate down as follows:

Principal Debt + Initial Legal Costs 144:00
Estimated Interest 41:60
Estimated Court Fees 25:00
Estimated Solicitors' Costs 50:00
Estimated Total 260:60

As there is no mention of Contractual costs it would imply that you are right in thinking it is means of clawing back legal costs.

As regards the date issue of PCN this was the 27/03/2012. I do not know the date of the parking event. The 23rd is a typo and I apologise for the confusion this has caused. I will edit accordingly.

[ostell]

The initial legal costs cannot be recovered in the small claims court. You take them to task on that.

Are they claiming the defendant was the driver or are they just claiming from the keeper? Don't identify the driver. Ask them how they have identified the driver.

[madpotter]

The initial legal costs cannot be recovered in the small claims court. You take them to task on that.

Are they claiming the defendant was the driver or are they just claiming from the keeper? Don't identify the driver. Ask them how they have identified the driver.

Thank you

They are just making a claim against myself - they have made no reference to keeper or driver, nor asked who was driving at the time.

I will add the issue of legal costs to my defence list.

I plan to draft a defence within the next few days and will post this for comments.

[SchoolRunMum]

2012 = pre-POFA.

Search this forum or Google, for 'Excel claim 6 years' as we have lots of last gasp trash claims like this, copy their lines of attack.

You do realise that in 2012 they could not hold a registered keeper liable?

LOADS of good defences were written here last year for 2012 Excel PCNs.

They parked in a disabled space, clearly displaying the blue badge.

In 2012, Excel had to follow the BPA Code of Practice and one clause then (I think, but you can check online by reading the old Code) was that vehicles displaying a Blue Badge MUST NOT be issued with a parking charge...

[Redivi]

In 2012, Excel had to follow the BPA Code of Practice and one clause then (I think, but you can check online by reading the old Code) was that vehicles displaying a Blue Badge MUST NOT be issued with a parking charge...

Nice one

This would have pre-dated the first Code of Practice that was introduced in October 2012 (to coincide with POFA ?)
I'm sure you're right because I remember a thread regarding its removal

The BPA has recently removed all the Codes of Practice from its website but they're still available at one of the archive sites

If Beavis requires compliance with a Code of Practice, is it possible for any parking notices to be enforced if the Code wasn't in existence at the time ?

[madpotter]

2012 = pre-POFA.

Search this forum or Google, for 'Excel claim 6 years' as we have lots of last gasp trash claims like this, copy their lines of attack.

You do realise that in 2012 they could not hold a registered keeper liable?

LOADS of good defences were written here last year for 2012 Excel PCNs.

They parked in a disabled space, clearly displaying the blue badge.

In 2012, Excel had to follow the BPA Code of Practice and one clause then (I think, but you can check online by reading the old Code) was that vehicles displaying a Blue Badge MUST NOT be issued with a parking charge...

Thank you - I have found this and it will form part of my defence - thanks again!

In 2012, Excel had to follow the BPA Code of Practice and one clause then (I think, but you can check online by reading the old Code) was that vehicles displaying a Blue Badge MUST NOT be issued with a parking charge...

Nice one

This would have pre-dated the first Code of Practice that was introduced in October 2012 (to coincide with POFA ?)
I'm sure you're right because I remember a thread regarding its removal

The BPA has recently removed all the Codes of Practice from its website but they're still available at one of the archive sites

If Beavis requires compliance with a Code of Practice, is it possible for any parking notices to be enforced if the Code wasn't in existence at the time ?

Thank you I have found this and will add to my defence - thanks again!

[ostell]

So they are attempting to claim form the keeper, as this is the only person identified from the DVLA information. THere is no way that they would know the driver details and it is now so long that it is impossible for the keeper to remember who was driving. Again, asked them for proof, not supposition, of who was driving.

[madpotter]

So they are attempting to claim form the keeper, as this is the only person identified from the DVLA information. THere is no way that they would know the driver details and it is now so long that it is impossible for the keeper to remember who was driving. Again, asked them for proof, not supposition, of who was driving.

Thank you - No keeper liability will form part of my defence.

[nosferatu1001]

Its not just that

You put them to strict proof of the drivers identity, as that is the only person liable for this charge. If you CAN state you were not the driver, then do so.

[madpotter]

Its not just that

You put them to strict proof of the drivers identity, as that is the only person liable for this charge. If you CAN state you were not the driver, then do so.

Thank you - I have done this. I will be posting my draft defence shortly.

Thank you all for your comments and suggestions. These have helped enormously in putting together a draft defence (below). I will be grateful for any comments regarding this.

Defence Draft 1

It is admitted that the defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question on the material date.

The claimant has no cause of action against the defendant on the following grounds:

1. a)The Particulars of Claim are vague and disclose no cause of action which would enable the defendant to prepare a specific defence. It was not signed by a legal person, but by BW Legal Services Limited. This is a failure to comply with CPR 16.4 Contents of the particulars of claim and Practice Direction 16 paras 7.3 – 7.5.
b) For the above reasons the defendant respectfully requests that the Court either strikes out this claim or order BW Legal to provide further and better Particulars of Claim.

2. a) The alleged contravention took place prior to the enactment of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. There is therefore no keeper liability and the claimant has no right to pursue the registered keeper. Despite this Excel Parking Services Ltd. and BW Legal Services Limited have continued to harass the defendant and the defendant's family with regard to this matter.
b) The claimant cannot assume that the registered keeper was the driver on the material date. The case of Elliot v Loake has previously been cited by Excel Parking, however this was a criminal case with forensic evidence whereby the keeper of the vehicle was proved to be the driver at the time. Therefore this has no bearing on this case. This is supported by the ruling in the case of Excel Parking v Mr C (Stockport) C8DP37F1, where it was deemed that Elliot v Loake was not relevant in keeper liability in relation to parking offences. Michael Henry Greenslade (Barrister and previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator) confirmed in 2015 that “It cannot be presumed that the keeper of a vehicle is also the driver”
c) In 2012 Excel Parking Services Ltd. was banned by the DVLA for a 3 month period from access the keeper data for “Stating or implying on their documentation/signage that the vehicle owner/keeper is liable for the payment of charges imposed in respect of parking contraventions, or that the vehicle owner/keeper had a legal responsibility to provide information as to who the driver was”.
d) The defendant requires the claimant to provide strict proof regarding the driver's identity.

3. a) The defendant denies that the claimant has the authority to bring this claim. The proper claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there was a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Excel Parking Ltd on the material date.
b) The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question.
c) Only the landowner can pursue a claim under the tort of trespass. The Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis confirmed that that such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

4. a) The car park in question was used only when carrying out specific family business. In all cases where this business was carried out the vehicle would have been parked in a designated disabled parking bay with a blue badge clearly displayed.
b) The Applicable BPA Code of Practice (paragraph 16.5) states that “If your landowner provides a concession that allows for parking for disabled people, if a vehicle displays a valid blue badge you must not issue it with parking charge notices”. As such Excel Parking were in contravention of the Code of Practice.

5. a) The defendant asserts that at the time of the alleged contravention there was inadequate signage at the site in question.
b) In particular there were no clear signs at the entrance of the car park or at the disabled bays stating that blue badge holders were now subject to a charge for car parking in disabled bays.
c) The defendant denies entering into any contract with the claimant. As the claimant failed to make the terms and conditions clear and prominent, it cannot be assumed that anyone entering the car park was readily aware of and agreed the terms and conditions.
d) Excel Parking is known for providing incoherent and sparse signage incapable of forming a contract. In Excel Parking Services Ltd v M R Cutts (Stockport) C1SE02795 in 2011, The claim was dismissed and Excel Parking were ordered to pay costs. The judge visited the site, viewed the signs and found that the key issue was that Excel Parking had not taken reasonable steps to draw Mr Cutt's attention to the terms and conditions of using the car park.
e)

6. The charge is a penalty and thus an unfair consumer charge. The claimant has not met the conditions stated in ParkingEye v Beavis for the penalty too be disengaged.

7. a)The claimant has produced a figure of £262.42. This is completely disproportionate to any loss suffered by the claimant. The defendant has the reasonable belief that this sum has been deliberately inflated. Any time and resources allegedly spent by the claimant are the staff employed performing their normal duties in operating the claimant’s business model, the so called “robo-claims' where a series of generic claims (similar to this one) are issued in large numbers as a means of generating income. These costs would have been incurred whether this claim was issued or not.
b) Legal fees are not recoverable in the County Court. (CPR 27.14) Nonetheless BW Legal, in their Letter of Claim, have itemised the following charges: Principal Debt + Initial Legal Costs = £144.00, Estimated Court Fees = £25.00 and Estimated Solicitors' Costs = £50.00. On their Particulars of Claim they are claiming £25.00 Court fee and £50.00 Legal representatives costs.
c) Furthermore interest of £43.42 has been added. This would have been avoided if court action were issued in 2012. The defendant feels this delay is a punitive measure, the claimant waiting the maximum allowed time from the date of the alleged contravention in order to claim a large amount of interest.

8. The defendant believes that this claim is vexatious, a result of the robo-claims business model and that its purpose is to distress and frighten the defendant into making a payment which is not owed.

I confirm that that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.