DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 88713--------------------------------------------------
COURT CLAIM FORM BW LEGAL and was not even the owner keeper
driver
DIR By: regis
Date: September 6, 2025, 4:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi again and thanks everyone, I have tried to gather as much
knowledge as possible from the forum,
I have filed an AOS, albeit late as issue date is 24 July 2025.
but I now have 0 days (no days) remaining
to file a defence, i've looked through the forum with loads of
defences but not sure if they apply to me.
I have received a claim form for which I replied to with an
acknowledgment of service albeit late so now
definitely I have 0 days left to file a defence and need some
urgent help. I only found this out earlier today
when checking the postal letters. (I have moved addresses and
have a redirection in place but somehow
this was sent to my new address).
I sold the car 20 May 2024 and updated DVLA online at the same
time. date of this alleged
contravention is 25 May 2024.
Particulars of claim are as follows:
Particulars of Claim
The Claim is for £170.00 for an unpaid
parking charge following a contractual
breach which occurred on 25/05/2024
in the private land (lawfully
occupied by the Claimant) at
Bowsprit Point Barkantine Estate (Patrol)
by the driver of
BMW X3 SPORT AUTO
BMW X3 SPORT AUTO
registration mark 7XLVLV. The terms and conditions displayed
offered the driver a contractual licence,
were accepted by the driver upon entry, and subsequently
breached. Driver's breach:
Failure to display a valid ticket/permit
The Claim and includes £70.00
recovery costs as set out in the terms and conditions and the
ATA AoS Code of Practice.
Issue Date 24 JUL 2025
Amount claimed 170.00
Court fee 35.00
Legal representative's costs 50.00
Total amount 255.00
issue date of the claim? [color=#111111]24 July 2025[/color]
date submitted the AoS? 06 September 2025 (I understand this to
be extremely late)
how did you submit AoS? Money Claims Online (MCOL)
Who is the Claimant? UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED
Claimant Address? 49 STATION ROAD, POLEGATE, ENGLAND, BN26 6EA
Address for sending documents and payment? BW LEGAL
ENTERPRISE HOUSE, 1 APEX VIEW
LEEDS
LS11 9BH
thanks to anyone that can help me urgently.
#Post#: 88727--------------------------------------------------
Re: COURT CLAIM FORM BW LEGAL and was not even the owner keeper
driver
DIR By: regis
Date: September 6, 2025, 7:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
anyone?
#Post#: 88728--------------------------------------------------
Re: COURT CLAIM FORM BW LEGAL and was not even the owner keeper
driver
DIR By: roythebus
Date: September 6, 2025, 7:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Have you had any other correspondence on this matter? We need to
see it all. My first thoughts are to inform them that you were
not the registered keeper or driver on that dats as you had sold
the vehicle on xxx date. Did you inform the DVLA online? But
even then it often takes a few weks for the DVLA to process the
change of RK as I found out when a car I sold last year started
clocking up speeding tickets 3 days after I sold it!
Others will be long with better advice.
#Post#: 88734--------------------------------------------------
Re: COURT CLAIM FORM BW LEGAL and was not even the owner keeper
driver
DIR By: b789
Date: September 6, 2025, 10:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
With an issue date of 24th July, you had until 4pm on Tuesday
12th August to either submit your defence or, if you submitted
an AoS by that date and time, you would then have had until 4pm
on Tuesday 26th August to submit your defence.
As you were able to submit the AoS, it is obvious they forgot
about it and have not yet applied for the CCJ, so you should log
back into your MCOL portal and submit the following as your
defence, without delay, immediately:
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. The
Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and
that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not
adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
>
> 2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of
Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made
against the Defendant such that the PoC do not adequately comply
with CPR 16.4.
>
> 3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC
because:
>
> (a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to
the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16.7.3(1);
>
> (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 adequately 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 breach occurred, 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;
>
> (e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is
calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest,
damages, or other charges;
>
> (f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the
parking charge and what proportion is damages;
>
> (g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is
sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant
cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
>
> 4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck
out similar claims of their own initiative for failure to
adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the
Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms
relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient
clarity.
>
> 5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have
found that requiring further case management steps would be
disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.
Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. The Defendant
submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites
the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim
due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR
16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant
proposes that the following Order be made:
>
> Draft Order:
>
> Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars
of claim and the defence.
>
> AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim
do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they
do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of
the terms and conditions of the contract which is (or are)
relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or
reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in
breach of contract.
>
> AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had
it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could
have done pursuant to CPR PD 7C.5.2(2), but chose not to do so.
>
> AND upon the claim being for a very modest sum such that the
court considers it disproportionate and not in accordance with
the overriding objective to allot to this case any further share
of the court's resources by ordering further particulars of
claim and a further defence, each followed by further referrals
to the judge for case management.
>
> ORDER:
>
> 1. The claim is struck out.
>
> 2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or
stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at
this Court not more than 5 days after service of this order,
failing which no such application may be made.
--- End Quote ---
Assuming they have not yet applied for a default CCJ and your
defence is accepted, you should also go purchase a lottery
ticket.
#Post#: 88741--------------------------------------------------
Re: COURT CLAIM FORM BW LEGAL and was not even the owner keeper
driver
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: September 7, 2025, 4:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: regis link ---
>
> anyone?
>
--- End Quote ---
You posted at 10pm on a weekend, you should not be surprised not
to have received a reply by 1.26am the next morning. This is a
busy forum run entirely by volunteers. Please be patient and do
not bump your threads
#Post#: 88759--------------------------------------------------
Re: COURT CLAIM FORM BW LEGAL and was not even the owner keeper
driver
DIR By: regis
Date: September 7, 2025, 6:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: roythebus link ---
>
> Have you had any other correspondence on this matter? We need
to see it all. My first thoughts are to inform them that you
were not the registered keeper or driver on that dats as you had
sold the vehicle on xxx date. Did you inform the DVLA online?
But even then it often takes a few weks for the DVLA to process
the change of RK as I found out when a car I sold last year
started clocking up speeding tickets 3 days after I sold it!
>
> Others will be long with better advice.
>
--- End Quote ---
No, I just received correspondence yesterday from BW Legal
letter about Claim Form and the Actual Claim form from the Court
I sold the car 20 May 2024 and updated DVLA online at the same
time. The date of this alleged contravention is 25 May 2024.
#Post#: 88760--------------------------------------------------
Re: COURT CLAIM FORM BW LEGAL and was not even the owner keeper
driver
DIR By: regis
Date: September 7, 2025, 6:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> With an issue date of 24th July, you had until 4pm on Tuesday
12th August to either submit your defence or, if you submitted
an AoS by that date and time, you would then have had until 4pm
on Tuesday 26th August to submit your defence.
>
> As you were able to submit the AoS, it is obvious they forgot
about it and have not yet applied for the CCJ, so you should log
back into your MCOL portal and submit the following as your
defence, without delay, immediately:
>
> 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. The
Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and
that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not
adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
>
> 2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of
Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made
against the Defendant such that the PoC do not adequately comply
with CPR 16.4.
>
> 3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC
because:
>
> (a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to
the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16.7.3(1);
>
> (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 adequately 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 breach occurred, 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;
>
> (e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is
calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest,
damages, or other charges;
>
> (f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the
parking charge and what proportion is damages;
>
> (g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is
sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant
cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
>
> 4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck
out similar claims of their own initiative for failure to
adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the
Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms
relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient
clarity.
>
> 5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have
found that requiring further case management steps would be
disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.
Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. The Defendant
submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites
the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim
due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR
16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant
proposes that the following Order be made:
>
> Draft Order:
>
> Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars
of claim and the defence.
>
> AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim
do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they
do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of
the terms and conditions of the contract which is (or are)
relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or
reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in
breach of contract.
>
> AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had
it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could
have done pursuant to CPR PD 7C.5.2(2), but chose not to do so.
>
> AND upon the claim being for a very modest sum such that the
court considers it disproportionate and not in accordance with
the overriding objective to allot to this case any further share
of the court's resources by ordering further particulars of
claim and a further defence, each followed by further referrals
to the judge for case management.
>
> ORDER:
>
> 1. The claim is struck out.
>
> 2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or
stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at
this Court not more than 5 days after service of this order,
failing which no such application may be made.
--- End Quote ---
Assuming they have not yet applied for a default CCJ and your
defence is accepted, you should also go purchase a lottery
ticket.
[/quote]
Somehow I have Submitted a Defence Online
Very Grateful to b789 for a Speedy and Worthy response.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1