bw legal court claim recieved

[Helprequired1]

No it wasn't a hire car and no windscreen ticket.. It was a postal ntk which I never recieved until bw provided my with one last week. that's noted, brill thank you

[Helprequired1]

[ostell]

So that will go into your defence.

[Helprequired1]

Sorry the last photo didn't upload. just in case it makes a difference

[ostell]

I have amended the list, added 9 (4) not given with the relevant period of 14 days.

[Helprequired1]

Ok so here's my attempt at a defence. anything I need to add it take out?

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incidents.
3. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation against visitors. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.
   
   No 'legitimate interest' or commercial justification - Beavis is distinguished

1. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

1. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading.

1. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

1. The Defendant never received the Notice to Keeper letter in-line with POFA at Section 4, (9) which resulted in no chance to appeal or contact the Claimant.

1. The Claimant failed to meet the requirements of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 with regards to the following sections:

1. 9(2)(a) Moving in front of a camera cannot, by definition, be parking.

1. 9(2)(b) No statement that the driver is liable for the charge.

1. 9(2)(f) The statement of keeper liability is not complete and not in the format prescribed by the act.

1. 9 (4) The Notice to Keeper was not given within the relevant period of 14 days

There can be no keeper liability

1. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £X for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
   
   
   9.1. The claim includes a sum of £XX described as "Legal representative's costs". This work is done as part of the Claimant's Legal Representatives everyday routine and no "expert services" are involved. The Claimant is put to strict proof, by way of timesheets or otherwise, to show how this cost has been incurred.
   
   
   9.2. This claim inflates the total to an eye-watering £XX, in a clear attempt at double recovery. The Defendant trusts that the presiding Judge will recognise this wholly unreasonable conduct as a gross abuse of process and may consider using the court's case management powers to strike the claim out of the court's own volition. The acid test is whether the conduct permits of a reasonable explanation, but the Defendant avers it cannot.

1. With no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant is fully aware that their claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail. 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. This case is fully distinguished in all respects, from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the decision turned on a legitimate interest and clear notices.

1. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without it’s honest belief in its truth

[ostell]

You have already determined that NCP lease the site so remove reference to no owner etc.

First time you reference POFA spell it out in full followed by (POFA) thereafter use POFA

the presiding Judge = the court

Legal fees: They are allowed to charge £50, that's the Solicitors costs on the form.

[Helprequired1]

Thanks ostell

which statement are you referring to regarding the no owner reference?

legal fees, are you referring to 9.1? if so I can change this. it was meant to refer to the extra £60 recovery costs... they have also added 8%interest to these costs in the particulars of claim

[ostell]

In 3 you are querying NCP owning the land. You have already been told by ? that they lease the land.

If it's about the usual £60 then leave it.

They are permitted to add 8%, that is the court approved rate.

[Helprequired1]

Ok I understand now.. I wrote to a local council worker who was dealing with a lot of complaints about the same car park, he confirmed to confirmed that it's leased and sent me the company's name and contact details...

so do I completely remove no 3 or tweak it? the reason I put 3 in is because although they aren't the owners, bw are claiming in the letter i received last week that NCP are in fact the owners

[ostell]

If they are leasing it then they are the landholders. If this is a council car park is there still a parking places order on it?

[Helprequired1]

They lease it from a private company who own the shopping centre.

do I need to completely remove number 3 then? sorry I just find all of this very confusing

[ostell]

Just leave in the first part about showing a proprietary interest in the land. You already know the answer so don't go in to deep in case it backfires.

[Helprequired1]

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incidents.
3. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land.
   
   No 'legitimate interest' or commercial justification - Beavis is distinguished

1. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

1. The vehicle in question is used by multiple members of the Defendant’s family and the Defendant has no recollection of whether they were the driver of the vehicle on [DATE]. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle on the day of the alleged contractual breach. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”). The Defendant denies that this Claimant fully complied with Schedule 4 of the POFA and the Claimant is put to strict proof.

1. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading.

1. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

1. It is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied or conduct.

1. The Defendant never received the Notice to Keeper letter in-line with The (POFA) at Section 4, (9) which resulted in no chance to appeal or contact the Claimant.

1. The Claimant failed to meet the requirements of schedule 4 of (POFA) with regards to the following sections:

1. 9(2)(a) Moving in front of a camera cannot, by definition, be parking.

1. 9(2)(b) No statement that the driver is liable for the charge.

1. 9(2)(f) The statement of keeper liability is not complete and not in the format prescribed by the act.

1. 9 (4) The Notice to Keeper was not given within the relevant period of 14 days

There can be no keeper liability

1. POFA 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60 for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
   
   
   11.1 This claim inflates the total to an eye-watering £XX, in a clear attempt at double recovery. The Defendant trusts that the court will recognise this wholly unreasonable conduct as a gross abuse of process and may consider using the court's case management powers to strike the claim out of the court's own volition. The acid test is whether the conduct permits of a reasonable explanation, but the Defendant avers it cannot.

1. With no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant is fully aware that their claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail. 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. This case is fully distinguished in all respects, from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the decision turned on a legitimate interest and clear notices.

1. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without it’s honest belief in its truth

[Helprequired1]

my 2nd attempt.. is that any better?