N THE COUNTY COURT
BW Legal services LTD
All correspondence from BW Legal were sent to the wrong address for the registered keeper and such like I have had no opportunity to discuss the issues with them. I believe the claimant has behaved unreasonably by not ensuring they used my correct contact details. . I suggest the claimant did not make reasonable enquiries as to my current address before perusing the court order especially considering they had good reason to believe they did not hold my current contact details. Furthermore, considering they received no response from me to their correspondence this should have been a clear indication of the obsolescence of the address. This is clearly a breach of the GDPA I am still waiting for answers to my questions. A counterclaim for breach of GDPA will be forthcoming.
The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at car park on 30/11/2017.
In addition to the original PCN penalty, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added 'costs' of £60 contractual costs pursuant to PCN Terms and conditions which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.
In the Particulars there is also a second add-on for purported 'legal representative costs of £50' on top of the vague £60, artificially hiking the sum to £247.80 This would be more than double recovery, being vague and disingenuous. Such costs are not permitted (CPR 27.14)
According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.
However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
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 them. They are at the entrance to the ramp going into the car park and it would be dangerous to stop and read the sign. Video to be presented to the court.
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 particularly at night in a badly lit area It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
The area in which the driver parked had NO signage displayed, photo to be provided, and when the driver was ready to purchase a ticket there was NO signs in and around the pay area. Photo to be presented to the court.
Any contract must have offer, acceptance, and consideration both ways. There would not have been consideration from the claimant to the driver. Therefore, there is no consideration from the driver to NCP.
On this basis I believe that the claimant has not provided any reasonable cause of action and thus the claim should be dismissed in its entirety.
I would like to enquire that 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.
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 £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
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 the facts contained in this Defence are true.
My defence feel free to let me know where I have gone wrong please