#6 CPM - BW Legal - Court Claim - Parked on double yellow lines - Please help
on 29 Jul, 2025 17:12 in Private parking tickets
Hi All,Background: 1. [ Guests cannot view attachments ] The car stopped on double yellow lines on Rosemont Road, Wembley, England (not Wharfside Business Park as alleged) on the day of the incident with Blue badge entitlement and clock correctly set and displayed on the dashboard. Land Registry documents for the same road in context is an administrative area of Brent council. The road on which the alleged infringement took place, is owned by Brent Council / Network Rail. 2. [ Guests cannot view attachments ] Signage nearby makes a request not to park on the road but to park in their marked bays by paying a parking charge. 3. [ Guests cannot view attachments ] Based on this fact, CPM issued a parking charge for a car on double yellow lines. 4. An appeal was filed on the Parking Charge Notice from the Claimant as a registered keeper which was rejected, driver details were not provided as there was no obligation to provide the driver details.5. [ Guests cannot view attachments ] County Claim has been issued and I am filing a defence for the same soon.Questions:Q1. I have drafted the defence and it fits in within the stipulated 122 lines limit on MCOS. Is there anything I need to modify or update it make it look better before I file the defence?Please guide specific updates needed.Q2. What is the correct email address for sending the Directions Questionnaire N180 DQ, is it dq.ccbc@justice.gov.uk or dq.cnbc@justice.gov.ukQ3. Claim Form states Issue Date of 24 July 2025, am I right in saying that I need to file AoS by deadline by 12th August 2025 and Defence by deadline 26th August 2025?Q4. I will be out of the country, so does anybody know if I can file AoS and Defence from outside the UK via MCOS? (N.B: I do not want to file them now as I will be out of the country entire month of August, so I need time before the Court asks me to attend Mediation)Q5. CPM is represented by BW Legal on this occasion. Can anybody suggest from past experience if BW Legal normally takes it forward to the hearing or ends up in discontinuance?Defence:1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;(c) The PoC do not clearly set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts);(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;(g) The PoC states that the Claimant is suing the defendant as the driver is on an assumption from the Claimant that the registered keeper was the driver, which may not be true. 2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). 3. The vehicle is recognised and it is confirmed that the Defendant was the registered keeper. An appeal was filed on the Parking Charge Notice from the Claimant as a registered keeper which was rejected, driver details were not provided as there was no obligation to provide the driver details.The car stopped on double yellow lines on Rosemont Road, Wembley, England (not Wharfside Business Park as alleged) on the day of the incident with Blue badge entitlement and clock correctly set and displayed on the dashboard. Land Registry documents for the same road in context is an administrative area of Brent council, the PoC do not state the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) to which the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts).The Claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to specify the period of parking to which this notice applies as prescribed by section 9 (2) (e) of the Act. The road on which the alleged infringement took place, is owned by Brent Council / Network Rail. As such it is not relevant land as defined by PoFA 2012 and again Claimant cannot therefore transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the PoC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. The same is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.7. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'.8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... by parking operators' and 'the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure'.9. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Additional costs/ fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.Thanks and Regards, [ Guests cannot view attachments ]