PPS/Gladstones/BW Windscreen PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform, - Not Parked In Allocated Bay - Premier Inn, Southernhay Exeter

[FTMDave]

Probably best to reply as it's a Letter Before Claim.

 

------------------------------------

 

Dear Sirs,

 

as I've already told you on XXXXX and on XXXXX, as the world's second best parking company lawyers you must know that for someone to owe your client money there must be a breach of the unilateral contract's advertised terms and there was not.

 

Your client painting yellow lines all over the place after the event and pretending they were there at the time of the event doesn't create a contract, it is merely misrepresentation.

 

I'm sure that you will advise your client they are wasting their money even if it means no payday for you as you lose them the court claim should they continue with this folly.

 

By the way I have self-identified as a man so stop calling me Ms or I shall seek opinion on whether your distressing salutation is gender discrimination that is actionable

[FTMDave]

That looks good, you only need a short defence at this point.

 

You could stick a bit in about them inflating their claim to try to circumvent the small claims limit on legal fees and this is an abuse of process.

 

I've just read the thread from the start and am still not sure about your point (3).  Is it right that it was a hire car and only you were named as a possible driver?

[FTMDave]

OK, for the moment then

 

 

1.  It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant, or broke any such contract.

 

2.  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 only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park 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.

 

3.  It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to establish keeper liability.

 

4.  The Claimant has inflated their claim to try to circumvent the small claims limit on legal fees and this is an abuse of process.

 

 

Point 1 is very generic and covers all bases.

 

To an extent it doesn't really matter if point 3 turns out to fail further down the line, you would simply ignore it and use other arguments.  However, under the terms of the lease, would a partner/friend/work colleague of yours have been able to drive the car, or just you personally?

[FTMDave]

Good, so keep point 3 then.

[FTMDave]

Yes, you can use a lot of what you've found - well done!

 

You just need to order them into relevant sections.  One on locus standi.  One on the signage.  One on de minimis.  One on the Unicorn Food Tax.  Etc.

 

I haven't got time to read through the whole thread now, but promise to do so this evening when I knock off work.  Can you confirm however that you have photos of both before and after they painted in their lines?

[FTMDave]

OK, I've finally had time to read through the whole thread.

 

The points you've found are excellent.  I would suggest dividing your WS into sections with sub-headings, and then putting the appropriate points under each section.  For example -

 

Locus standi - they are not the landowner (can't see anything in their contract allowing them to sue rather than the landowner), lack of planning permission.

Signage - pretending to be BPA members (in contradiction of their WS point 5), other points you've made above.

Road markings - painting the yellow lines months later.

De minimis - you paid for your parking and obstructed no-one.

Double recovery/abuse of process - the £60 Unicorn Food Tax they have made up.

[FTMDave]

You have put in a load of research - well done!

 

It reads very well to me.  However, hang on till nearer the deadline before filing it, in case some of the regulars suggest some last tweaking.

 

In 10 I would add that the only evidence they have provided is an old contract from 2015 which does not seem to give them the right to sue under their own name (I've read it quickly and can find no such clause).

 

In 11, after "Exeter City Council" add "Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence and thus no contract can have been formed".

 

In 15 it should be "if those yellow lines had been present".

 

No problem in e-mailing it to the court.  Around when you do that, send the fleecers their copy by first class post and get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.  

[FTMDave]

Hang on, I made a mistake re (10).  Under "Terms & Conditions" in the fleecers' contract in (2) there is written "the Client authorises the Company to take legal action to recover these excess charges if needed", so you can't argue they aren't authorised.

 

Instead point out it's an old contract from 2015 with no proof of renewal.

 

Plus, did you find out who the landowner is?  Is it this Hobstone Limited?

[FTMDave]

Superb news - your detective skills are second to none!

 

So it's impossible for the fleecers to have a valid contract with a company that doesn't exist.

 

So, after "no proof of renewal" in post 157 add "Indeed, the contract is with Hobstone Limited, a company which was dissolved in 2015, so the contract cannot possibly be currently valid".

[FTMDave]

Sorry to hear things went badly.

 

As dx says, judge lottery unfortunately.

 

So you have to pay £200.  I imagine they were too stupid to deal with the case themselves and got a solicitor to do it for them.  Paying the solicitor plus the involvement of BW Legal will easily have cost £150, then they had £50 court costs to shelve out, meaning they didn't make a penny out of you.  As you say, ending up paying £200 is not much worse than £160, and I bet you have learnt a lot about the legal process which will set you in good stead for the future.

 

One small victory, they claimed £160 + costs, seems the judge allowed £100 + costs and at least disallowed the Unicorn Food Tax.