Bw legal were straight on the case, had their DQ back within days. As the claim is against my wife but I’ll be representing her, is it only 1 witness ie her? Where do I come into it?

Have had a letter from BW Leagal saying they are proceeding with the claim. today have now had a Notice of Proposed Allocation to the small claims track. Have to complete the small claims direction questionnaire. Seems all pretty straight forward. It says I must serve copies on all other parties. Do I need to send a copy to BW Legal?

Ok, it’s online though so will look like a different name

Ok excellent, feeling a little more confident about it all now after reading other posts. One thing is all the court stuff is in my wife’s maiden name, we have since been married so should she sign it as it appears on the claim?

ok thanks shamrocker. my initial defence is It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim on the following grounds:- 1. the registered keeper was not the driver and as the POFA 2012 has not been followed, the registered keeper can not be held liable. 2. there has been no breach of contract so no cause for action against the defendant. 3. the claimant has not responded to a CPR 31.14 request. is this enough? is it worth adding about land owner, signage issues? I understand that this is just the preliminary stuff and the full defence will be talked about in court. I still cant see that they haven't followed POFA though, any help with that would be grand. my defence will be on the grounds that no contract has been broken as no contract was agreed. will need to read up more on that and how to get that across. if I prove that then everything else will be irrelevant. they have no proof that the driver didn't buy a ticket, (should I contact BWL before hand to ask for this?)

I can’t see what they haven’t done, but every post I’ve read states they haven’t followed POFA in their defences. What am I missing?

I’m a bit confused by the POFA, “- Warn the keeper that if the parking charges remains outstanding after 28 days and the name and address of the driver has not been given, or otherwise known to the person entitled to the parking charge, that “creditor” will be entitled to recover the parking charge from the registered keeper.” Doesn’t that allow them to pursue the registered keeper?

I have found these point from similar cases to my wifes. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim on the following grounds:- 1 The registered keeper was not the driver at the time of the alleged incident. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with. The registered keeper has not been proven as the driver, as such the keeper can only be held liable if the claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements. (in my wifes case she was actually picking her son up who worked at one of the shops in the retail park. she drove around waiting for him but as he was late coming out she must have overstayed the "free time limit" is it just easier to deny being the driver? I wouldn't expect anyone to condone not telling the truth.) 2. The proper claimant is the landholder. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landholder to Excel Parking Services Ltd. 3. Excel Parking Services Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land. Absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim. ( I presume this applies unless they bring proof to court? ) 4. The signage on the site in question was unclear and not prominent on site/around the areas in question, so no contract has been formed with driver(s) to pay £100, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound. ( not sure this all applies as I think the signs are clear and visible, although there must be something with the wording ) 5. The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss for the following reasons: a) The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question b) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable. (I read that a judge dismissed a claim on this so should I take this bit out? ) 6. The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Claimant claims a sum of £100 as a ‘parking charge’ (for which liability is denied) plus The Particulars of Claim include £54 that the claimant has untruthfully presented as contractual charges. The claimant's solicitor has, however, described the charge in correspondence as "legal fees" and is well aware that CPR 27.14 does not permit such charges to be recovered in the Small Claims court. (is this relevant?) 7. The claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case') yet such an assertion is not supported by any similarity in the location, circumstances nor signage. Absent any offer or agreement or even any licence to park without a permit, the Beavis case does not assist the claimant and in fact, supports my defence. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant. As the Supreme Court in the Beavis case held, ParkingEye would not have been able to recover any sum without agreement on the charge and any issue of trespass would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum. The amount claimed is an extravagant and unconscionable penalty. Even if all the conditions had been met to disengage the penalty, the Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis was only prepared to accept a charge (£85) that was sufficient to act as a disincentive and that was worth collecting. The Supreme Court had previously stated that £135 would be unacceptable ( ParkingEye v Somerfield). 8. In addition, the claimant has yet to respond to part 18 Request written and sent by the defendant and delivered to BW Legal on the XX/XX/2016, To summarise: The defendant was not the driver at the time the charge was issued. The claimant is not the landholder and therefore not in a position to issue this charge. The signage at the site at the time of the alleged event does not meet accepted code of practice. The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover such an inflated amount. ‘Parkingeye v Beavis’ clearly does not apply in this case The claimant or their solicitor has not responded to the part 18 request any more help on this would be greatly appreciated.

Been reading up and to be honest I’m not sure if I could go through this in court, I’m not the most confident or he cleverest to be fair. I could easily get myself in a pickle

It’s been 14 days since I sent the letter off to Bw Legal. I’ve not heard anything from them. The date to submit a defence is in 7 days. Should I wait a bit longer?

Oh, should I send this recorded delivery?

All actioned now, letter will be posted tonight. thanks for all your help so far.

this claim is against my wife, can I put the details all in her name on the mcol website but deal with it for her? there is a section that says I" am the defendant" or "litigation friend". should I tick the litigation friend section? all the details are in her name but she couldn't cope going to court. thanks

Name of the Claimant ? Excel Parking Services claimants Solicitors: B W Legal services ltd Date of issue – 26 January 2018 Date to ack - 13/2/18 to submit defence - 27/2/18 What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim? 1.The claimant's claim is for the sum of £100 being monies due from the defendant to the claimant in respect of a parking charge notice (PCN) issued on 04/12/2016 (issue date) at 13:36:29 at Ebbw Vale The Walk Anpr Eps Differential Charge Scheme. 2.The PCN relates to Citroen under registration xxxx xxx. the terms of the PCN allowed the defendant 28 days from issue date to pay the PCN, but the defendant failed to do so. 3.Despite demand having been made, the defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. 4.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 4/1/2016 to 25/1/2018 being an amount of £8 The claimant also claims £60 contractual costs pursuant to PCN terms and conditions. What is the value of the claim? total amount is £243.36 (includes court fees and legal representatives costs.) amount claimed without those is £168.36 Has the claim been issued by the Private parking Company or was the PCN assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim ? claimant is the private parking company Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? had notification that is was being handed to BW Legal hope ive included everything needed thanks

reading through the letter in the link and the posts after, there are time stamped photos and the signage was pretty clear. is this a lost cause for me?