Britannia PCN for a full carpark - car was never parked!

KeithP

Just send BWL a letter denying any debt and wait patiently for a County Court Claim Form to drop through your letter-box.

No need to fill in any of their forms.

Coupon-mad

LBC stage is fully covered in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread. No filling in forms.

Stick around this time and read similar threads about LBC stage, as you will soon get a claim and you need to be ready to defend & win.

theduchess2018

Thank you both. I think I got confused thinking the first letter they sent me was the LBC but it makes sense now. I'll have a look at the other threads and start working on a defence certainly.

Mark2spark

My tuppence worth is to forget about the secondary paid for parking, it's not relevant.
You are looking for them to provide evidence that you actually parked.
Any evidence that you can gather in the meantime (like witness statements) that the car park was full with no places available to park would be the main line of your defence.

theduchess2018

Please could someone take a look at my proposed defence. I have looked at several examples but still feel out of my depth with this. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, £224.66, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the hirer, entered the carpark, Plymouth- Harbour MSCP Plymouth, on the date stated but was unable to find a space. The time spent in the carpark was the time taken to circle the premises twice in an extremely slow moving queue.
3. It is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
4. The Claimant states that that the Defendant failed to make a valid payment but no proof has been provided that the vehicle was ever parked in the carpark on the date of the alleged contravention. Photographic evidence shows the vehicle entering and leaving the carpark at the times stated but this does not amount to proof that the vehicle was parked between those times. (In the POPLA appeal process Britannia uploaded evidence showing the records of the pay and display machines that were in operation on the day as proof that they were working. They have not provided this to me as part of the SAR and I can’t seem to access it now on the POPLA site but would it be worth pursuing this? I know it suggested the carpark was busy but don’t know whether it would help my case or not if I had it all. I do have time to contact POPLA to try and get it…)

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.

6. The terms on the Claimant’s signage state that it is 'Camera Controlled Pay on Arrival' and advises below, in small writing, that 'further details' are on 'notices in the carpark'. However, as it was never possible to exit the vehicle to see these notices, there was no contract agreed as it was never possible to read the notices and thereby agree to the terms and conditions. Moreover, the use of ANPR technology was not in compliance with the BPA requirement that ‘signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.' (BPA Section 21.1). The signage in question did not meet this condition and is not ‘transparent’: it does not state that timing will be from the points of entry and exit to the carpark, and not the time parked. Further terms and conditions are in tiny writing on the sides of the payment machines, but it would not be possible to read these without leaving the vehicle, which was impossible in the circumstances.

7. The Claimant is also referred to the case Parking Eye v Mrs X of March 17th 2014 in which the Judge found in favour of the Defendant who had claimed to have been unable to find a parking space at Fistral Beach and had spent 31 minutes on the premises looking for one. The Judge ruled that the ‘ Claimant cannot prove whether this car was parked or not.’ Likewise, the Claimant in this case has also provided no evidence that the vehicle was parked. The Judge also stated that, with a lack of evidence on either side as to whether the vehicle was parked the ‘balance of probabilities’ was important and noted that the location of the carpark and the date in question Whit half-term, meant it likely that the carpark would have been busy. In this case the carpark is also located at a tourist venue and the alleged contravention took place during the summer holidays, supporting the Defendant’s claim that the carpark was full. The carpark contains ten stories and it is therefore not unlikely that it would take fifty minutes to traverse it twice in very slow moving traffic. The Claimant is further referred to the Judge in the above case’s conclusion that ‘driving around a carpark [does not form] a genuine pre-estimate of loss as opposed to actually parking.’

8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

9. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.


As I said any comments would be great. Thank you.

KeithP

theduchess2018 wrote: »

As I said any comments would be great.

You haven't said, but have you received a County Court Claim Form?

If so, what is the Issue Date on it and did it come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?

theduchess2018

Yes ,I've received that form and have until 18/6 to get the defence in -working that out as it's 28 days after the issue date (you add 5 days onto the date printed on there it says). I returned the initial form requesting the 28 days to get my defence in. Yes, it came from Northanpton.


BW Legal have contacted me to try to persuade me to pay up to avoid CCJ and have told me that I'm unlikely to succeed because POPLA has already found against me. Scare tactics I suppose but the whole thing stinks. They have said they will be in touch again before the cut off date.

Umkomaas

BW Legal have contacted me to try to persuade me to pay up to avoid CCJ and have told me that I'm unlikely to succeed because POPLA has already found against me. Scare tactics I suppose but the whole thing stinks. They have said they will be in touch again before the cut off date.

All part of the standard robo nature of the process. Keep going!

KeithP

...and the Issue Date on your Claim Form is??

theduchess2018

Issue date is 16/5 and then it says on the form that the Date of Service is 5 days after that (21/5/) and I have until 28 days after the date of service to get my defence in.