DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 78696--------------------------------------------------
Re: BW Legal - UK Car Park Management
DIR By: KF9393
Date: June 28, 2025, 1:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, il continue to ignore. How many LoC's do they send as
one was received 10th May which I originally responded to.
#Post#: 78726--------------------------------------------------
Re: BW Legal - UK Car Park Management
DIR By: mickR
Date: June 28, 2025, 5:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
eh??
#Post#: 78762--------------------------------------------------
Re: BW Legal - UK Car Park Management
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 29, 2025, 6:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Reply #11 and Reply #12 above, a letter of claim was received
and responded to.
The latest letter appears to be a reply to the reply.
No further response required, but in due course there will be a
claim form via the courts raised, when this is received we can
advise further.
#Post#: 80250--------------------------------------------------
Re: BW Legal - UK Car Park Management
DIR By: KF9393
Date: July 9, 2025, 8:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ah gotcha, makes sense. Thank you.
Another letter arrived in the post today.
HTML https://imgur.com/a/b6kq4xK
HTML https://imgur.com/a/b6kq4xK
#Post#: 91679--------------------------------------------------
Re: BW Legal - UK Car Park Management
DIR By: KF9393
Date: September 26, 2025, 2:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Evening all,
I've just logged into my BW Legal account and can see they have
upped the fine to £255 a few days ago. £35 CPC Claim Fee and £50
fixed costs on claim.
I've not received any letters in the post but I'm assuming they
are now prepping to take me to court?
I will keep this thread updated as and when I recieve something
further in the post.
Thanks
#Post#: 91708--------------------------------------------------
Re: BW Legal - UK Car Park Management
DIR By: b789
Date: September 27, 2025, 6:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is a BW Legal post–Letter of Claim “chaser”. It is not a
court claim and creates no new deadlines. It’s designed to
intimidate you into paying or starting a repayment plan. Until
you receive an official County Court claim form (N1SDT) from the
Civil National Business Centre (CNBC), there is nothing to
respond to or defend. Do not phone, negotiate, or pay based on
this letter.
When they issue the claim (they will), it will be for the £100 +
fake £70 + £35 claim fee + £50 fixed legal costs. They may try
and add some interest.
All you can do for now, is wait for the N1SDT Claim Form pack to
arrive in the post. When it does, You can discard everything
except the N1SDT Claim Form which has the Particulars of Claim
(PoC) on it. Please show us that form. only redact your personal
info, the claim number and the MCOL password. Leave ALL dates
visible, especially the issue date of the claim.
We will provide the defence you should use and instruction on
how to submit it.
#Post#: 91961--------------------------------------------------
Re: BW Legal - UK Car Park Management
DIR By: KF9393
Date: September 29, 2025, 6:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> This is a BW Legal post–Letter of Claim “chaser”. It is not a
court claim and creates no new deadlines. It’s designed to
intimidate you into paying or starting a repayment plan. Until
you receive an official County Court claim form (N1SDT) from the
Civil National Business Centre (CNBC), there is nothing to
respond to or defend. Do not phone, negotiate, or pay based on
this letter.
>
> When they issue the claim (they will), it will be for the £100
+ fake £70 + £35 claim fee + £50 fixed legal costs. They may try
and add some interest.
>
> All you can do for now, is wait for the N1SDT Claim Form pack
to arrive in the post. When it does, You can discard everything
except the N1SDT Claim Form which has the Particulars of Claim
(PoC) on it. Please show us that form. only redact your personal
info, the claim number and the MCOL password. Leave ALL dates
visible, especially the issue date of the claim.
>
> We will provide the defence you should use and instruction on
how to submit it.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks for the response.
N1SDT Claim form arrived in the post today 29/09 alongside
another letter from BW Legal
BW Legal
HTML https://imgur.com/a/dH8C7zO
N1SDT Claim Form
HTML https://imgur.com/a/MI5Xzbx
#Post#: 91987--------------------------------------------------
Re: BW Legal - UK Car Park Management
DIR By: b789
Date: September 29, 2025, 7:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
With an issue date of 24th September you have until 4pm on
Monday 13th October to submit your defence. If you submit an
Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then
have until 4pm on Monday 27th October to submit your defence.
Submit an AoS now. Follow the instructions in this linked PDF:
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
DO NOT submit the following defence before 13th October.
Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit a
defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the
CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence
using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the
"system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or
inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with
the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that
far.
You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on
MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the
122 lines limit.
--- Quote ---
> 1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. No
liability is admitted and no debt is owed. The Particulars of
Claim (PoC) fail to disclose a coherent cause of action.
>
> 2. The PoC do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4 and PD 16.
They omit the contractual terms relied upon, any pleaded period
of parking, the location within the site, the time and duration,
the mechanism by which any duration was measured, and any
calculation or lawful basis for the total claimed and add-on
sums. They also fail to state whether the Claimant sues as
against the driver or registered keeper.
>
> 3. Pre-Action non-compliance and prejudice. After the Letter
of Claim the Defendant requested, as required by the Pre-Action
Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1–5.2), the
documents and information needed to understand and narrow the
issues (landowner authority, contemporaneous signage/terms,
evidence of any period of parking, and quantum methodology). The
Claimant did not provide what was reasonably requested. It is
therefore impossible for the Defendant to plead a fully
particularised defence as contemplated by CPR 16.5. That
non-compliance should weigh against the Claimant.
>
> 4. The claim was issued via MCOL. The Claimant could and
should have served separate, detailed Particulars within 14 days
(CPR 7.4; PD 7A/7E; PD 7C para 5.2). It chose not to.
>
> 5. Strike-out sought (no leave to amend). Having regard to the
overriding objective (CPR 1.1) and proportionality for a modest
small-claims matter, it would be a waste of limited court
resources to direct further pleadings or case management where
the Claimant has twice failed—pre-action and on issue—to
articulate a viable cause. The Court is invited to strike out
the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a) for disclosing no reasonable
grounds and for non-compliance with CPR 16.4.
>
> 6. Further and in the alternative on the merits (without
waiver of para 5):
>
> (a) No driver is admitted. The Defendant is the registered
keeper only; there is no legal presumption that the keeper was
the driver.
> (b) Keeper liability under PoFA Sch 4 is denied: no NtK
compliant with para 9(4)–(6) was served within the statutory
period. In any event, PoFA s4(5) caps any keeper liability at
the charge stated on a compliant NtK.
> (c) Standing is denied: strict proof is required of a
contemporaneous landowner contract conferring authority to
contract and litigate.
> (d) Signage/terms were not prominent or legible; any core term
(charge/time limit) was buried in small print and not
incorporated. The facts are distinguished from ParkingEye v
Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.
> (e) The added £70 “debt recovery” is an unrecoverable and
abusive add-on amounting to double recovery, contrary to PoFA
s4(5) and CPR 27.14; a code of practice cannot create a
substantive entitlement.
> (f) Any hidden/ambiguous terms are unfair and not binding
under the Consumer Rights Act 2015; ambiguity is construed
contra proferentem.
>
> 7. The claim is denied. The Defendant invites the Court to
strike it out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and reserves the right
to seek costs for unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g).
--- End Quote ---
I repeat... DO NOT submit this defence before 13th October.
#Post#: 92040--------------------------------------------------
Re: BW Legal - UK Car Park Management
DIR By: KF9393
Date: September 29, 2025, 11:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> With an issue date of 24th September you have until 4pm on
Monday 13th October to submit your defence. If you submit an
Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then
have until 4pm on Monday 27th October to submit your defence.
>
> Submit an AoS now. Follow the instructions in this linked PDF:
>
>
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
>
> DO NOT submit the following defence before 13th October.
>
> Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit
a defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the
CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence
using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the
"system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or
inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with
the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that
far.
>
> You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box
on MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into
the 122 lines limit.
>
> [quote]1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. No
liability is admitted and no debt is owed. The Particulars of
Claim (PoC) fail to disclose a coherent cause of action.
>
> 2. The PoC do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4 and PD 16.
They omit the contractual terms relied upon, any pleaded period
of parking, the location within the site, the time and duration,
the mechanism by which any duration was measured, and any
calculation or lawful basis for the total claimed and add-on
sums. They also fail to state whether the Claimant sues as
against the driver or registered keeper.
>
> 3. Pre-Action non-compliance and prejudice. After the Letter
of Claim the Defendant requested, as required by the Pre-Action
Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1–5.2), the
documents and information needed to understand and narrow the
issues (landowner authority, contemporaneous signage/terms,
evidence of any period of parking, and quantum methodology). The
Claimant did not provide what was reasonably requested. It is
therefore impossible for the Defendant to plead a fully
particularised defence as contemplated by CPR 16.5. That
non-compliance should weigh against the Claimant.
>
> 4. The claim was issued via MCOL. The Claimant could and
should have served separate, detailed Particulars within 14 days
(CPR 7.4; PD 7A/7E; PD 7C para 5.2). It chose not to.
>
> 5. Strike-out sought (no leave to amend). Having regard to the
overriding objective (CPR 1.1) and proportionality for a modest
small-claims matter, it would be a waste of limited court
resources to direct further pleadings or case management where
the Claimant has twice failed—pre-action and on issue—to
articulate a viable cause. The Court is invited to strike out
the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a) for disclosing no reasonable
grounds and for non-compliance with CPR 16.4.
>
> 6. Further and in the alternative on the merits (without
waiver of para 5):
>
> (a) No driver is admitted. The Defendant is the registered
keeper only; there is no legal presumption that the keeper was
the driver.
> (b) Keeper liability under PoFA Sch 4 is denied: no NtK
compliant with para 9(4)–(6) was served within the statutory
period. In any event, PoFA s4(5) caps any keeper liability at
the charge stated on a compliant NtK.
> (c) Standing is denied: strict proof is required of a
contemporaneous landowner contract conferring authority to
contract and litigate.
> (d) Signage/terms were not prominent or legible; any core term
(charge/time limit) was buried in small print and not
incorporated. The facts are distinguished from ParkingEye v
Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.
> (e) The added £70 “debt recovery” is an unrecoverable and
abusive add-on amounting to double recovery, contrary to PoFA
s4(5) and CPR 27.14; a code of practice cannot create a
substantive entitlement.
> (f) Any hidden/ambiguous terms are unfair and not binding
under the Consumer Rights Act 2015; ambiguity is construed
contra proferentem.
>
> 7. The claim is denied. The Defendant invites the Court to
strike it out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and reserves the right
to seek costs for unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g).
--- End Quote ---
I repeat... DO NOT submit this defence before 13th October.
[/quote]
AoS submitted following the link.
Is there any benefit of submitting that defence on say 21st or
22nd October right at the end of my 28 days or shall I just
submit the defence any time after 13th October?
Once again thanks for all your help in this.
#Post#: 92042--------------------------------------------------
Re: BW Legal - UK Car Park Management
DIR By: b789
Date: September 29, 2025, 11:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The only reason for the delay in submitting the defence is so
that the claimant cannot file more detailed PoC within 14 days
of service of the claim. There is no advantage to be gained by
submitting the defence any later than 13th October.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 7
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page