Cpm/BW windscreen pcns - BW PAP LOC Now Claimform - (residential car park) The citrus Building, Maderia road, Bournemouth ***Claim Dismissed with Costs** now another PAPLOC for another same place ticket ***Dismissed again with costs***

[brassnecked]

Answer  the questions on here:

 

then acknowledge Online on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform.
.
 register as an individual
 note the long gateway number given
 then log in
.
 select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box.
.
 then using the details required from the claimform
.
 defend all
 leave jurisdiction unticked.
 click thru to the end
 confirm and exit MCOL.

[harni]

Thanks for your help so far guys,

 

Right, i have registered on the money claim website and acknowledged that i intend to defend in full. 

 

Tomorrow i will start typing up the CPR and get that posted off to BW Legal Monday morning.

 

It does say that the claimant is Countrywide parking however the address for sending documents and payments is BW legal.

 

Do i need to send a copy to Countrywide as well?

[dx100uk]

no follow the guide

[ericsbrother]

they have added unicorn food tax with added chutzpah to reach a figure of more than £600 so if you dotn defend they can send the bailiffs round to seize your vehicle.

 

You will bhe challenging this but only when you put in your defence. You can touch on it in your outline defence to be submitted soon but will really lay into it in the full defence that will be much later

[dx100uk]

please do not post our templates in the open forum

we know what they look like

there is no need to adapt it send as is

[harni]

Noted with copying the template over, apologies. The letter has now been sent off to them and i am writing the defence. Am i ok to post that up for criticism?

[dx100uk]

as everyone else does..

 

[harni]

1. It is admitted that Defendant is the hirer of the vehicle(s)
in question.

2. It is denied that the Defendant has breached any of the terms
and conditions as set out by the claimant on their signage.

3. The Claimant has noted on the parking charge notices attached
to the vehicle that the reason for enforcement was due to double
parking. Not only is this missing as a prohibited action from the
terms and conditions set out by the Claimant, the Claimant has
issued letters to each resident of the site stating that double
parking is allowed in the under croft spaces.

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 Claimant, by their own admission during an appeal against
one of the parking charges in question, are not contracted by the
landowner to cover the parking space in question.

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.

[shamrocker]

Have you written this all yourself?

[harni]

No, not all of it.

Some of it was a template which I believe to be relevant

(however if I’m incorrect then I’d really appreciate some advice on where I’ve gone wrong)

[dx100uk]

not due till 27th so no harm in preparing.

 

 

[harni]

Thats the idea.

Whilst I’m confident that they won’t be stupid enough to actually take this to court, and even if they do, will lose, I still want to make sure I have all my ducks in a row

 

on a side note, when does the phone calls become harassment?

BW are calling me daily, sometimes several times a day.

 

I did answer to them once when they asked what my intentions were which was made perfectly clear to be told

“we will keep calling you regardless”

[dx100uk]

well make sure you log every call.

hope yo recorded that call?

don't be hoodwinked either.

into thinking they wont push it right thru till the day before the hearing to run up costs that they supposedly will claim in barrister fees.

to make you wet yourself and crumble.

 

 

 

[harni]

It wasn’t recorded as to be honest, I was caught a little off guard however they are calling on a daily basis so I’ll make a point of recording the next one!

 

there won’t be any crumbling here.

I’ve just been reading through the history of this to jog my memory on some of the events and it’s reminded me just how pathetic they are as a business. I fully intend to waste as much of their time and hopefully money as possible. 

[brassnecked]

Let them spout and don't tell them that you have recorded the call until its nearly ended and you have said you are logging date and time of all calls as they are in breach of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997

 

 Prohibition of harassment.

(1)A person must not pursue a course of conduct—

(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and

(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

[F1(1A)A person must not pursue a course of conduct —

(a)which involves harassment of two or more persons, and

(b)which he knows or ought to know involves harassment of those persons, and

(c)by which he intends to persuade any person (whether or not one of those mentioned above)—

(i)not to do something that he is entitled or required to do, or

(ii)to do something that he is not under any obligation to do.]

[harni]

Perfect, will make sure to do this next time they call although surprisingly they haven’t today (yet)

[ericsbrother]

when they call you could just put the phione down next to you and carry on with somehting else until they get fed up. Placing it near to the radio is always a good one.

 

However, if you wish to challenge them over their calls make sure you can record the conversation.

Anothet taccitc is to pretend you have a long list of questions to ask them and then ask them completely random things about their clients like what size shoes do they wear as you are not convinced that they have fulfilled the identification procedures as required for solicitors under the money laundering regs and will they be furnishing proof of that before they attend court as you would hate to think that they turn up and then find out that their clients aren't really the directors of a parking co but pranksters who have just copied their details and created a fake entity just to make fools of people and you would hate them to be wasting their time as a result of such a jape.

[harni]

I have just received BW Legals response to my CPR Letter, about 40 pages of reprints of the various letters that have been sent to me over the past 10 months. Again their evidence here only supports my arguments that their terms and conditions do not deny residents the ability to double park in spaces where possible which is what the tickets were issued for. 

 

I am yet yet to submit my defence. Would now be the time to do so or do I wait until the last moment?

[shamrocker]

Did they send you a copy of the management agreement with the landowner?

 

What date do you need to submit your defence by? Don't do it just yet if you've still got time. I think it may benefit from a little refinement.

[dx100uk]

not due till 27th

[harni]

No they didn’t however that is due to the fact I didn’t request it.

 

During my research before sending it, I was under the impression they were not in a position where they had to release that information however I realise now that I should have requested that. 

As DX has kindly confirmed, it’s due 27th so I do still have some time but want to start refining (and not make silly mistakes!)

 

I’m convinced here they have really stitched themselves up but need to cover all bases

[dx100uk]

But they will have to produce it regardless to you requesting or not if the claim progresses to the disclosure stage

 

so dont sweat about that

[ericsbrother]

you need to put somewhere in your witness statement that you do not believe that they have the necessary permissions and contract and  that they have failed to show LOCUS STANDI to bring this matter to court.

 

that will put them on the back foot and certainly if the judeg doesnt ask them to provide evidence you should be ramming this point home in your oral submission on the day.

 

Better though to try and force the issue before that day, they may very well drop the matter once they have a copy of your WS in their hands

[harni]

Im due to submit my defence on MCOL in a few days and have the defence below.

I would appreciate any criticisms or improvements.

 

In reference to point 3, the claimant has actually provided me with a letter stating that double parking IS acceptable.

Do i include this or leave that to later down the line at WS stage?

 

 

Defence.pdf

[ericsbrother]

are you an archaeologist? if not where did you dig up that old relic of an outline defence?

 

come on, reread the thread on the forum and choose somehting that fits your circumstance better.

 

so I would suggest

1. the claimant has failed to show a cause for action as they have not shown they have a right to enter into contracts with the public nor to make claims in their own name. The defendant does not believe they have locus stando in this matter.

 

2  In any case there was no breach of the contract offered by the defendant.

 

3 the claimant offered individual terms that override the signage at the site so the terms in that contract were adhered to and thus no cause for action by way of a breach of contract