Thanks for the response @brassnecked, I agree.

@dx100uk do you have any useful suggestions on points we should be making in the defence? we've never been through this process before so don't really know where to begin. I know that we have to address the Particulars of Claim, but it only details dates of the PCNs and the amounts they want us to pay. I've attached a recent letter they've sent us.

@lookinforinfo thanks for this, I totally agree. Do you think we should write them a letter challenging them on this or save this as ammunition if it were to go to court?

Hi, Thanks for your response @lookinforinfo. This is BW Legal's correspondence in response to the CPR request we sent them a couple weeks back. They refused to disclose any evidence of jurisdiction in regards to trespassing or contracts with landowners.

We requested evidence for the PCNs and have received this. Where do we go from here? BW_Legal_Evidence-compressed.pdf

Hi Guys, The deadline for us to file my defence is soon approaching. I have written a draft of my defence, please see below and advise: 1. The defendant is unable to determine whether they are/were the recorded keeper of the vehicle in question. The defendant has no recollection that the claimant has provided any photographic evidence of the vehicle or image of the driver in question. 2. It is denied that the Defendant parked in the carpark at the times mentioned in the Particulars OR the Defendant is unable to admit or deny the precise times she was parked in the carpark as she has no recollection of this. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the same. 3. It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Paragraph 7.2a The defendant has not been provided any details of the location of the carpark, the precise time of the said dates, or the registration of the vehicle. Paragraph 7.4 The defendant has no recollection of notice given by affixing it to the vehicle or by handing it to a person appearing to be in charge of the vehicle. 4. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. 5. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

Thank you @brassnecked I'm going to be sending out the letter ASAP tomorrow as the deadline is on the 15th August

Thanks for the correction dx100uk. Also, do you mind telling me what IPC and VCS stand for?

Thanks for the idea EB, I will be sending this to BW Legal and CC: Premier Park Limited. We have been back to the suspected location, but as there was no location specified in any of the previous letters they sent. We are reluctant to use the pictures captured of the sign as that proves that we have any idea what they're talking about.

I planned to file my defence by addressing the points made in their Particulars of Claims. 1.The Claimant's Claim is for the sum of £200.00 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of multiple Parking Charge Notices (PCN's) issued between 12/02/2015 and 24/02/2015, full details of which have been delivered to the Defendant. 2.The terms of the PCN's allowed the Defendant 28 days from the issue date of the PCN to pay the PCN sum, which the Defendant failed to do. 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 the rate of 8% per annum a daily rate of 0.04 from 12/02/2015 to 25/07/2019 being an amount of £65. 5. The Claimant also claims £120.00 contractual costs pursuant to the PCN Terms and Conditions. As far as I'm concerned, they're randomly accusing me of this "offence" without providing any proof.

@lookinforinfo The draft I posted in post #12 is directly copied from EB in a thread for Gladstones. I wasn't sure whether it was a little too random and needed tweeking or personalising to our situation.

Apologies in advance... I've had no prior experience in writing abusive letters so don't really know where to begin. Please advise.

Hi, Could I get some advice on the defence I will be filing through MCOL? I cant use this template I found in another thread as there were no details provided in the Particular of Claim in regards to the make/model of the car in question nor the location that the PCNs were issued. " 1. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle]. 2. It is denied that the Defendant parked in [carpark] at the times mentioned in the Particulars OR the Defendant is unable to admit or deny the precise times he was parked in [carpark] as he has no recollection of this. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the same. 3. It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 [set out the specific ways in which the requirements of the paragraphs mentioned above have not been met]. Only include the above paragraph if you have checked the POFA and can refer to the specific paragraphs which have not been complied with. Otherwise delete it. Do not forget to renumber the remaining paragraphs. 4. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. 5. If there was a contract, it is denied that the parking charge is incorporated into the contract. As per Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163, the relevant term must be made known before a contract was formed. Here, the charge was not incorporated into the contract because [explain]. Only include the above paragraph if you have a good reason for saying that the signage was unclear, or that the signage could only be viewed after parking your car. If the signage was clear then delete it. Do not forget to renumber the remaining paragraphs. 6. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all."

Thanks for the suggestion, I've just read through the ECP/Gladstones letter thread and have copied the abusive letter to send to Premier Park Ltd & BW Legal. Please advise. CC: Premier Park Limited Your incompetencies show after reading yet another magnificent failure to attend court over a claim in Romford resulting in a loss of money for their clients. Why don’t you just shut up and send me £60 to avoid humiliation later, it will be cheaper for your client that way. I tried finding other examples of insulting letters to write to the parking co. and solicitors but can't find any good links.

As they have provided vehicle information or the carpark in question, can I use this a defence. This is what I have drafted out so far: " 1. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle]. I have no recollection that the claimant have provided any photographic evidence of the vehicle in question, or an image of the driver. Therefore I can not confirm that I am/was the recorded keeper of the said vehicle. 2. It is denied that the Defendant parked in [carpark] at the times mentioned in the Particulars OR the Defendant is unable to admit or deny the precise times he was parked in [carpark] as he has no recollection of this. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the same. I have not been provided any details of the location of the carpark, the allocated time of the said dates, the registration of the vehicle. 3. It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Disclosure 31.5 (7D) “(d) an order that each party disclose any documents which it is reasonable to suppose may contain information which enables that party to advance its own case or to damage that of any other party, or which leads to an enquiry which has either of those consequences;” Still awaiting documents requested from BW Legal in the CPR 31.14 sent out on the 30th July 2019. The delay in providing these documents is preventing us from building a fair case before our court hearing. The letter(s) that BW legal and Premier Park Limited have sent to me in the past has not once informed the time stamp, the car park location, the number plate or a picture / evidence of me parking there. 4. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. 6. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all." ... This is our response to the PAP, deadline 15th August. Pleased advise, thanks.