TPS/BW Windscreen PCN 2016 claimform - Aztec West Business, BRISTOL

[Woodytb]

Name of the Claimant: Total Parking Solutions

Claimants Solicitors: BW Legal

 

Date of issue: 04/09/2019

 

What is the claim for:

 

1.The Claimant Claim is for the sum of £96.20 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for a parking contravention which occured on 02/02/2016 at 09:34:46 in the car park at Aztec West Business, BRISTOL, in relation to a [car] registration mark [my reg].

 

2.The Defendant was allowed 28 days from the PCN issue Date to pay, but 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 26.20 from 02/02/2016 to 03/09/2019 being an amount of £26.20.

The Claimant also claims £54.00 contractual costs as set out in the terms and conditions.

 

What is the value of the claim: Total amount £225.20

 

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: Debt Purchaser 

 

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment: TPS sent a letter stating it was passed to BW Legal

 

Hi everyone,

 

I would love some help with this parking ticket problem!

 

I used to work for a company that didn't allow parking onsite during certain hours 

instead parked my car in a space that was allocated to a disused building that was up for let less than a 5 minute walk away.

 

From memory, no signs were in place to state parking was not allowed.

Google Maps show that signs are now in place as of July 2016 (the parking ticket was issued February 2016, no signs visible on Google Maps from June 2015) 

 

I ignored the PCN reminder and final reminder,

it was passed to Premier Solicitors who issued a letter before claim (I also ignored this)

This year it was passed to BW Legal who have now raised the Court Claim Form.

 

I'll respond to the claim online to disagree and send off the CPR form to BW Legal,

 

apart from the below is there anything else I should do?

 

Thank in advance 

 

[dx100uk]

so there was no windscreen PCN issued?

was this an ANPR capture?

 

do you still have the notice to keeper/PCN

if so scan that up to one multipage pdf

and you might as well inc all the letters bothsides too

but not the claimform please

 

[Woodytb]

Sorry yes, there was a windscreen PCN issued but I fear I've thrown it out after they went quiet for almost 2 years. I will have a proper look through paperwork to make sure.

Will also get all letters scanned tomorrow. 

[Woodytb]

Here's all the letters I've received. Unfortunately I haven't found the windscreen PCN. The last two pages in the PDF came as a letter today so I've included them. 

 

Would you like a screen shot of the google maps pic with and without signage?

 

TPS_BW_letters-compressed.pdf

[ericsbrother]

for starters they have fialed to create ANY liability for their charge because they havent followed the POFA. they ahve filed to say who the creditor is and more specifically them. This means that no monies can be due to them or anyone else.

Howevr, that part of the POFA is not well understood as it is rarely an issue brought up in court so you are advised to find other reasons to add to your defence to defeat this claim.

 

what we need are images of the land and any signage there (or not there- let thm prove that the signs were there at the time if they have disappeared since) and if you can tell us who actually owns the land as yur company will have been a tenant but not necessarily under the same terms as others at the site so the parking management may be piecemeal rather than with ther actual landlord.

 

BWL are not debt purchasers, they are solicitors acting for the parking co

 

waht you need to do is acknowledge the claim and then get what info you can about the site and signage so we can suggest some more points to use in your defence.  You have a couple of reasos so far- no offer of contract by way of signage at the tiem so no breach and also their failure to follow the POFA so they failed to create a liability so no cause for action against you in any capacity

[Woodytb]

Here you go. 

 

First pic from June 2015

Second pic from July 2016

Third pic signage. 

 

I had parked there February 2016 and I'm pretty certain the signage wasn't there, I'm waiting on some ex-coworkers who said they took pictures at the time to see if they still have them. 

 

Claim has been acknowledged online, am I ok to send off the CPR form? 

 

 

june2015 july2016 signage.pdf

[dx100uk]

follow the guide

[Woodytb]

Which guide are you referring to, ericsbrother's post or the link for sending a CPR form?

[brassnecked]

This one here, follow it it outlines steps to take:

 

 

[Woodytb]

Perfect, thanks

[dx100uk]

sorry guide didn't post:

 

pop up 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.

 get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors [if one is not listed send to the claimant]

no need to sign anything
.
you DO NOT await the return of paperwork.
you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform [1 in the count]

[ericsbrother]

so current (ish) sign is for a totally different company and that will help you put doubt in the assertion that they had signs there and the dates they had any authority to enter into contracts with the public.

With many of these historical claims they got booted out and do it as an act of revenge as people will tend to moan at the landlord, new parking co or whoever.

when it comes to filing an outline defence you canstate that there were no signs so no contract and also reason that by failing to answer your request for documents ( they wont) they have filed to show any authority and this will be the first thing on the mind of the judge if it comes to a hearing. what is more likely is that you will get soem huff and puff but if you remain resolute they will drop the claim as most od the ancient cases rely on you not having any evidence left and thus chucking the towel in

[Woodytb]

Fantastic thanks all, I've sent my response on MCOL website so will send the CPR request today and keep you updated.

 

Many thanks

[ericsbrother]

I hope that yu havent entered a defence yet as you should wait until the last possible time to allow you to use their failure to comply with the CPR 31.14 request against them. If they dotn respond so be it and you file in time rather than wait beyond the time allowed

[Woodytb]

No, just aknowledged the claim as per Dx's post up to "confirm and exit MCOL".

 

 

[ericsbrother]

good, you now have an extra fortnight to get your initial research done and await their response(or lack of) and use that to help rubbish the claim.

[Woodytb]

Hi all, 

 

I've received a response to the CPR request and have attached for viewing. 

 

CPRResponse.pdf

[dx100uk]

well they will have to produce both at disclosure stage

if it gets that far

 

defence regardless is due 4th by 4pm

 

[Woodytb]

On that note, should I still wait to submit my defence until the last minute or could I get it out of the way now that they've responded to CPR? 

 

Also can my defence be as simple as 'no signage was present'?

 

 

[dx100uk]

you need to read a bunch of pcn claimform threads in this same forum

you will be using or std 2/3/4 line defence.

 

 

[Woodytb]

Hi all,

 

I've tried to read though as many similar threads as possible, so here's a draft of my defence;

 

1.The particulars of the claim are denied in its entirety. It is 
denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any 
relief at all. 

 

2.No signage was present onsite whatsoever at the time of the 
alleged contravention.

 

3.The Claimant has failed to provide any proof of planning 
permission confirming that signage was indeed in place, stating it 
to be "irrelevant".

4.The Claimant has failed to provide any contract between Total 
Parking Solutions Limited and the landowner confirming they are 
able to act on behalf of the landowner, again stating it to be 
"irrelevant".

 

5.Signage that is now in place refers to a different company 
entirely which denies the authority for the claimant to enter into 
contracts with the public. 

 

Too much?

Not enough?

...All wrong!?

 

Many Thanks

 

[dx100uk]

1 should be your last point

 

The first one should be with regard to being the reg'd keeper etc in relation to their para 1 ..you as the defendant might not have been the driver so are not the correct party to sue. They state otherwise refute it.

[Woodytb]

Brill thanks Dx, so add in the I confirm I'm the registered keeper change point 1 to last point, other than that all good to send on the 4th? 

[dx100uk]

Looks ok let eb comment

See my updated last post

[Woodytb]

I noticed I replied a bit too quickly, I state I'm the registered keeper but no mention of being the driver. leave that for them to prove?