BW Legal technicalities in court claim

[HGIB]

Hi all, this is my first post and I was hoping I could receive a bit more personal advice to my situation. Unfortunately, my exact queries dont seem to have been answered on other forums (or I just havent been able to find it) so thought I would ask directly.

Ive received a court claim from BW Legal and I have found the following 'issues' but are unsure if they will help in my claim.

1. The N180 Directions Questionnaire has not been signed by the individual for BW Legal but instead the standard "BW Legal" signature has been added. I was under the impression that there needs to be an actual signature of the person representing BW Legal on this document?

2. The claim refers to a parking contravention in a car park with the wrong address on it. It refers to a different road and postcode on the claim form to the one that is on google and also the address on the planning application. However on the agreement between the operator and land owner there is a diagram of the outline of the correct car park.

3. As per the above, planning has been refused and last year an enforcement notice was issued to remove all ANPR and signage and use of the site as a car park. Unfortunately this was put on hold as the operator (Britannia Parking) put in an appeal. The car park is still active but with no planning permission.

4. The agreement between the operator and land owner does state in its termination clauses that following receipt of a local authority enforcement notice which prevents the car park from being operated as envisaged by the agreement that the agreement can be terminated immediately. Surely if this is in the actual termination clause of the agreement then they were aware that they arent legal able to trade?

I look forward to hearing your advice on the above points.

[des8]

Hi & welcome

If you have received a directions Questionnaire you have presumably already entered a defence.
Amending that defence comes with a cost (£255 I believe!)

point 1 .. no mileage there

Point 2: If there is no car park at the address given on the claim form, there can be no offence.
You need to find out what is actually at the nominated address

point 3 &4 sometimes it works, sometimes not. Park operating without PP is not necessarily illegal

ostell

[ostell]

Are there signs on site? Signs without advertising consent is illegal

If they are claiming for a different address then they have no case.

If it is a road named is it an adopted road? Check with the council.

If the keeper hasn't been identified does the PCN comply with POFA?

[HGIB]

Hi Des 8 and Ostell, many thanks for your replies.

How would I find the exact address of the car park? The car park is in the place of a former church which had an address of a different road (although both very similar - the difference being the word 'park' ie XXXX road vs XXXX park road)

The planning application was made (and later refused) to the address XXXX road but the claim is made to XXXX 'park' road. As well as this on google maps the actual address for the car park and postcode is different to the one on the claim form.

Des8 - yes there are signs on site - which advertising law (if applicable) would have been broken by not having PP? Could you please also clarify what you mean by adopted road?

With regards to entering my defence this has already been submitted and also includes reference to an abuse of process due to extra charges being added.

[HGIB]

Hi again.... my little brain is now working overtime. Please see below my defence.... Im now panicking that although I make reference to the fact there is no claim as there is no car park at the address on the claim form, Im now worried that because I then wittered on about other things relating to a car park at another address Ive kind of hung myself out to dry. Will the judge pick up on there other points and pick me up on them or will they be ignored when it is confirmed there is no claim to defend due to their being no car park at the address on the claim form?


DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that he is liable to the Claimant either as alleged in the Particulars of Claim or at all.
2. The claimant makes an allegation that the registered keeper and/or the driver of a vehicle, registered XXXXX(the vehicle) was observed breaching the Terms and Conditions of the car park at XXXXXXX – XXXPark Road BXX 5XD.
3. There is no car park registered with the then XXXXX Borough Council (now XXXXXXXXXXX Council – XXX council) and therefore no claim exists – please see Appendix 1,2,3,4
   1. 1 – a google image of the only car park in that area, however the address for this is XXXRoad BXX 5XJ
   2. 2 – a copy of a delegated report completed by planning officer XXXXXXXX refusing planning permission to a car park on XXXX Road
   3. 3 – a copy of the XXX councils planning register showing planning permission applied and refused at a site on XXXX Road
   4. 4 – a copy of an email sent to Mr XXXXX (witness) confirming that planning permission was applied for at a site on XXXX Road but that this was denied and further enforcement action taken.
4. The Claimant has supplied alleged photographic evidence of the alleged contravention. It has already been clarified that there is no car park at the site XXXX Park Road BXX 5XB however the photographic evidence supplied is inconsistent with the entry or exit points of a different car park located at Bournemouth XXX Road BXX 5XJ. Please see Appendix 5,6,7,8
   1. 5 – photo sent by Claimant apparently showing the vehicle entering the car park – please take note of the double yellow lines in the back ground of the photo
   2. 6 – photo taken by Defendant looking into the entrance to the car park – please note there are no double yellow lines at the entrance to the car park
   3. 7 – photo taken by Defendant looking out of the car park – please note there are no double yellow lines at the entrance to the car park
   4. 8 – photo sent by Claimant showing the vehicle exiting the car park – please note there are no double yellow lines at the exit to the car park.
5. Abuse of Process – The Claimant has knowingly issued an inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.
6. District Judge Taylor, under claim number F0DP201T, confirmed that BW Legal had conducted an ABUSE OF PROCESS and confirmed that the case was being thrown out without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the civil procedures rules 1998
7. The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis to justify its actions, however as no breach of any terms and conditions has occurred at the site the Claimant has entered on the claim form, this is irrelevant.
8. If the court does wish to consider that the trial should go ahead then the Defendant would highlight the Judgement of ParkingEye Ltd v Carguis District Judge C Mahy confirmed that it is for the Claimant to confirm that the charge is reasonable and commercially justified as a genuine pre-estimate of loss. District Judge C Mahy confirmed there was a difference between ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis and ParkingEye v Cargius in that the Beavis case was an overstay of a free period of parking which could effect the local businesses trade. In Cargius it was highlighted that there was no free period of parking and the car park was entirely pay per hour. District Judge C Mahoy found in the case of the defendant. Please See Appendix 9.
   1. 9 – copy of the judgement of ParkingEye Ltd v Cargius
9. Given that the cost of parking for 24 hours at the car park in the vicinity of Exeter Park Road is £5 the overinflated fee of £100 would be considered a penalty.