Jump to content


Premier/BW Claimform ANPR PCN - George Braunton - Exeter Road Braunton Devon EX33 2JJ


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 110 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

 

Name of the Claimant : Premier Parking Ltd

Claimants Solicitors: Bw legal 

 

Date of issue – 17 May 2021

 

Date for AOS - Acknowledged 19 May 2021 (Deadline 4 June 2021)

 

Date to submit Defence - Friday 18 June 2021

 

What is the claim for – 

 

1.The claim is for the sum of £107.04 being due from the Defendant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for a contractual breach which occurred on 28/05/2020 in the private car park/land at George Braunton - Exeter Road Braunton Devon EX33 2JJ In relation to a Peugeot XYZ, registration mark XXXXXX.

 

2.The PCN was issued as the driver failed to comply with the terms and conditions as displayed.

 

3.Despite demands, the charge remains unpair. 

 

4.Pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum (a daily date of £0.02) from 28/05/2020 to 14/05/2021 being an amount of £7.04. The Claimant also claims £60.00 recovery costs as set out in the Terms and Conditions and in the ATA AoS Code of Practice. 

 

 

What is the value of the claim?

 

Amount Claimed; £167.04

court fees: £25

legal rep fees: £50

Total Amount: £242.04

 

Signage at Car Park (which in my view is POOR).

 

Response to CPR Request bwlegal-2-compressed.pdf

 

Parking Charge Notice etc as supplied within the CPR Response above. 

 

They won't supply proof of landowner.

 

George Loveless - “We raise the watchword, liberty. We will, we will, we will be free!"

 

My advice is only my opinion, I am not a legal expert.

 

IF YOU LIKE THE ADVICE I'M GIVING AND ARE HAPPY WITH IT, CLICK THE SCALES ON THE BOTTOM LEFT OF THIS POST AND TELL ME.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Premier/BW Claimform ANPR PCN - George Braunton - Exeter Road Braunton Devon EX33 2JJ

had to take down your links to the photos as that hosting site uses phishing loggers to harvest pers details.

and your PCN .pdf as it's got your name on it....

 

please put  the photos up in one mass PDF one to a page.

 

next up is to find our std 3 -5 line generic defence and get this up ready to file by 4pm 18th.

 

did you receive a letter of claim from BW?

 

and was this an ANPR capture?

 

 

  • Thanks 1

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies - here are the images again Car Park Shot 3-merged-compressed.pdf

 

Here is the PCN again - Parking Charge Notice-edited-compressed-edited.pdf

 

No letter of claim from them was received. SAR was also sent to Premier Park Ltd on 19 May, no response yet. This is for my sister, she tells me she had nothing after the final reminder in August 20. 

 

Yes this is ANPR although I cannot see where the camera is monitoring the exit, although they do capture the back plates of the car. 

George Loveless - “We raise the watchword, liberty. We will, we will, we will be free!"

 

My advice is only my opinion, I am not a legal expert.

 

IF YOU LIKE THE ADVICE I'M GIVING AND ARE HAPPY WITH IT, CLICK THE SCALES ON THE BOTTOM LEFT OF THIS POST AND TELL ME.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, thanks for all the work you've put in - I wish everyone who comes here would do the same!

 

You're right - the signage is pants.

 

So what do the fleecers reckon your sister did wrong then?  Did she not see their tiny signs and thus not pay?

  • Thanks 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.  
 

I thought as much. She was buying Fish and Chips (she’s registered keeper) her husband was driving. 
 

He pulled into the car park and waited for her while she had a couple of issues with the order and drove off. 
 

They’re saying she didn’t pay at all, well no, he didn’t realise it was a private car park. 
 

Do I mention signage in Defence or just that no contract was entered into?

George Loveless - “We raise the watchword, liberty. We will, we will, we will be free!"

 

My advice is only my opinion, I am not a legal expert.

 

IF YOU LIKE THE ADVICE I'M GIVING AND ARE HAPPY WITH IT, CLICK THE SCALES ON THE BOTTOM LEFT OF THIS POST AND TELL ME.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please post up a proposed defence before you file it.  We generally suggest to keep the defence as generic as possible, because if you get specific the fleecers will have time to think up lies to counter the defence.

 

The "offence" was 28.05.2020.  You've redacted everything (well done) but gone one step too far and taken out the "issued date".  What date was their rubbish issued and what date did your sister get it?  I ask to see if the idiots have respected POFA 2012, especially as your sister wasn't the driver.

 

 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

The date of issue was 3 June 2020. 
 

we don’t know when she received it I’m afraid. 

George Loveless - “We raise the watchword, liberty. We will, we will, we will be free!"

 

My advice is only my opinion, I am not a legal expert.

 

IF YOU LIKE THE ADVICE I'M GIVING AND ARE HAPPY WITH IT, CLICK THE SCALES ON THE BOTTOM LEFT OF THIS POST AND TELL ME.

Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting no PAPLOC 

she hasnt moved in recent times has she?

 

dx

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Morning,

 

No she hasn’t moved, certainly not during the period in question. Moved 4 years ago. 
 

There has been nothing disclosed from BW other than the PCN and the Final Demand letter. 

 

DRAFT Defence - I haven't mentioned the signage being POOR, I'm not sure how to word it?

 

1.     The Defendant received the claim XXXXX from the County Court Business Centre on 19 May 2021.
 

2.     Save as specifically admitted in this defence the Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre action correspondence.
 

3.     The Defendant is embarrassed in pleading to the Particulars of Claim as it stands at present, inter alia: -

The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim disclose no legal cause of action and they are embarrassing to the Defendant as the Claimant's statement of case is insufficiently particularised and does not comply or even attempt to comply with CPR Part 16 and practice direction 16 7.5. In this regard I wish to draw the Courts attention to the following matters;

A)    The Particulars of Claim are vague and insufficient and do not disclose an adequate statement of facts relating to or proceeding the alleged cause of action. No particulars are offered in relation to the nature of the any agreement. the method the Claimant calculated any outstanding sums due, how they became due, or any other matters necessary to substantiate the Claimant's claim.

 

B)    The overriding objective of the CPRs dictates that the case should be handled at a proportionate cost. The defendant recognises this duty and refrains from making an application for summary judgement at a cost which exceeds the claims value but asks the court to strike the claim out under its powers, of it’s own motion.

 

4.     It is denied that the Defendant has entered into a contract with the Claimant.
 

5.     The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim states the contract was entered into between 28 May 2020.

 

6.     On the 19 May 2021 The Defendant sent a request for inspection of documents in respect of the claims particularised by the Claimant under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14. 

 

7.     The Claimant responded in part in a letter dated 6 June 2021, received on 4 June 2021. The Claimant has refused to provide evidence of their right to operate at the Car Park. There has been no Pre-Action Conduct by the Claimant prior to the Claim being issued.

 

8.     On the 19 May 2021 The Defendant sent a Subject Access Request to the Claimant, to date the Claimant has not responded. 

 

9.     Under Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) Where the claim includes a money claim, a defendant shall be taken to require that any allegation relating to the amount of money claimed be proved unless he expressly admits the allegation. Therefore, it is expected that the Claimant be required to prove the allegation that the money is owed as claimed, part of this proof must be that the Claimant’s right to operate on the land.

 

10.  The Defendant respectfully requests the court orders the Claimants to provide the necessary documentation in order for the Defendant to fully plead a case or in the alternative the Claim should stand struck out. 

 

11.  The Defendant respectfully requests the court for permission to amend the defence when the full details are received, with cost being met by the claimant.
 

12.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all. 

 

13.  The Claimant is claiming for more than the original alleged debt and is abusing the process.

Edited by FTMDave
Claim number showing

George Loveless - “We raise the watchword, liberty. We will, we will, we will be free!"

 

My advice is only my opinion, I am not a legal expert.

 

IF YOU LIKE THE ADVICE I'M GIVING AND ARE HAPPY WITH IT, CLICK THE SCALES ON THE BOTTOM LEFT OF THIS POST AND TELL ME.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is an initial defence, after AOS, its way too long 3 lines 5 max betts at this stage if you refer back to FTM Dave's response at Post# 6 less is more at this stage

Look at

No contract was entered intp, as********

How long were they in the carpark, as is a minimum 10 minute Grace period in the Trade Association guidelines

 

Others will have some suggestions also.

  • Thanks 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they were in the car park 25 minutes, they deny this and say that's too long because they'd already been waiting for the fish and chips on the road, they don't think they were waiting more than 10 minutes in the car park but we can't prove that.

George Loveless - “We raise the watchword, liberty. We will, we will, we will be free!"

 

My advice is only my opinion, I am not a legal expert.

 

IF YOU LIKE THE ADVICE I'M GIVING AND ARE HAPPY WITH IT, CLICK THE SCALES ON THE BOTTOM LEFT OF THIS POST AND TELL ME.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it an ANPR site?  If so some fertile ground to plough with that and the signage, mainly for later at WS stage

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah its an ANPR site but when I visited it I can't see any ANPR pointing on the exit.

George Loveless - “We raise the watchword, liberty. We will, we will, we will be free!"

 

My advice is only my opinion, I am not a legal expert.

 

IF YOU LIKE THE ADVICE I'M GIVING AND ARE HAPPY WITH IT, CLICK THE SCALES ON THE BOTTOM LEFT OF THIS POST AND TELL ME.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Signage stipulates a 5 minute Grace, it cannot be less than 10

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

please don't file that embarrassed defence. very old hat esp the bit about re filing later.

 

see about post 66 here

 

VCS Spycar PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - No Stopping 47) STOPPING IN A RESTRICTED BUS STOP /STAND Robin Hood Airport Doncaster - Page 3 - Private Land Parking Enforcement - Consumer Action Group

 

 

  • Thanks 1

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all, 

 

How is the below as a Defence, I've taken it from the post quoted above and tweaked it?

 

1.The claim is for the sum of £107.04 being due from the Defendant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for a contractual breach which occurred on 28/05/2020 in the private car park/land at George Braunton - Exeter Road Braunton Devon EX33 2JJ In relation to a Peugeot XYZ, registration mark XXXXXX.

 

2.The PCN was issued as the driver failed to comply with the terms and conditions as displayed.

 

3.Despite demands, the charge remains unpair. 

 

4.Pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum (a daily date of £0.02) from 28/05/2020 to 14/05/2021 being an amount of £7.04. The Claimant also claims £60.00 recovery costs as set out in the Terms and Conditions and in the ATA AoS Code of Practice. 

 

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

1. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land.

 

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, it is denied that the Defendant received any offer or accepted a contract. The Claimant was only allegedly 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.

 

3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. The Claimant is not in a position to state if the Defendant was the driver at the time.

 

4.  The Claimant has not complied with CPR 31.14 request for evidence of an agreement with the landowner. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

 

5. There are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.

 

6. It is denied that the Claimant entered into any pre-action conduct prior to issuing this claim.

 

 

George Loveless - “We raise the watchword, liberty. We will, we will, we will be free!"

 

My advice is only my opinion, I am not a legal expert.

 

IF YOU LIKE THE ADVICE I'M GIVING AND ARE HAPPY WITH IT, CLICK THE SCALES ON THE BOTTOM LEFT OF THIS POST AND TELL ME.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have bought down your particulars of claim as  filed

 

look at Andyorch's defence and see how it is structured to specifically responding to each of the paras in the POC their claims 

 

you've cut important bits out.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for this DX, I've made changes to the defence below. I think they are ready to go...

 

1.The claim is for the sum of £107.04 being due from the Defendant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for a contractual breach which occurred on 28/05/2020 in the private car park/land at George Braunton - Exeter Road Braunton Devon EX33 2JJ In relation to a Peugeot XYZ, registration mark XXXXXX.

 

2.The PCN was issued as the driver failed to comply with the terms and conditions as displayed.

 

3.Despite demands, the charge remains unpair. 

 

4.Pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum (a daily date of £0.02) from 28/05/2020 to 14/05/2021 being an amount of £7.04. The Claimant also claims £60.00 recovery costs as set out in the Terms and Conditions and in the ATA AoS Code of Practice. 

 

 

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land.

 

2.  Paragraph 2 and 3 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance, it is denied that the Defendant received any offer or accepted a contract. The Claimant was only allegedly 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.

 

3. It is admitted that the Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. The Claimant is not in a position to state if the Defendant was the driver at the time.

 

4.  The Claimant has not complied with CPR 31.14 dated 19 May 2021 request for evidence of an agreement with the landowner. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

 

5. Paragraph 4 is denied. There are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.

 

6. It is denied that the Claimant entered into any pre-action conduct prior to issuing this claim.

 

 

Therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to evidence its cause of action and contractual costs and what loss it has suffered. 

 

The Claimant is further 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 Particulars of Claim are denied in their entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all.

George Loveless - “We raise the watchword, liberty. We will, we will, we will be free!"

 

My advice is only my opinion, I am not a legal expert.

 

IF YOU LIKE THE ADVICE I'M GIVING AND ARE HAPPY WITH IT, CLICK THE SCALES ON THE BOTTOM LEFT OF THIS POST AND TELL ME.

Link to post
Share on other sites

let others help too

 

not due till the 18th +10days away.

  • Thanks 1

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So is this exactly how the fleecers set out their PoC, in four paragraphs and all numbered?

 

1.The claim is for the sum of £107.04 being due from the Defendant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for a contractual breach which occurred on 28/05/2020 in the private car park/land at George Braunton - Exeter Road Braunton Devon EX33 2JJ In relation to a Peugeot XYZ, registration mark XXXXXX.

 

2.The PCN was issued as the driver failed to comply with the terms and conditions as displayed.

 

3.Despite demands, the charge remains unpair. 

 

4.Pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum (a daily date of £0.02) from 28/05/2020 to 14/05/2021 being an amount of £7.04. The Claimant also claims £60.00 recovery costs as set out in the Terms and Conditions and in the ATA AoS Code of Practice.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

no we do that usually.

 

just makes it easier to respond to concisely and fully.

 

dx

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

dx, I just wanted to ensure that if the OP refers to paragraph 2, paragraph 4, etc., that these paragraphs actually exist in the PoC.

 

Often the fleecers just file a wall of text.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...