Britannia + BW Legal court papers

KeithP

One very good reason for not doing that is because a Defence is not a Witness Statement.

Your Witness Statement is your story of what happened - doesn't it say that in the NEWBIES thread?

IloveBritannia

It does, however I have also found the following, which I thought would have been appropriate in my case:
But if your defence is mainly legal arguments, such as their non-compliance with POFA, lack of standing and so on, then you could start your W/S by saying something like "The facts of the case are as set out in my original defence, and I rely on that document as a true account."

Then go on to list the legal arguments.

IloveBritannia

that was from Bargpole in his reply to Snellosaurus

IloveBritannia

And that was Bargpole in his reply to Snellosaurus

IloveBritannia

Besides, I thought my story wold turn int a long winded tale which would have lost the Judge's interest after the first few verses as I'm not exactly a JK Rowling...

KeithP

And have you seen any other WS looking like an epic novel?

You asked for people's thoughts. I gave you mine.

You respond with "but Bargepole says...".

I'll leave you to it.

IloveBritannia

KeithP,

I did not intend to cause you any offence and was just trying to explain why I was doing what I was doing,my apologies if I came across as dismissive.

I would not intentionally bite any hand that fed me, that's for sure.

IloveBritannia

I'm hoping there's still someone out there willing to help...?

Here is the War and Peace part 1 (I have not included appendices):

WITNESS STATEMENT
1. I, Django Unchained am the Defendant in this claim. Any facts contained within this statement are true to the best of my information and belief.
2. Towards the end of November 2017 the Defendant received in the post a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) from Britannia Parking (Registered in England No. 08182990) for allegedly exceeding the maximum stay on the Slough Retail Park car park on the 16th November 2017.
3. Although the Defendant is the registered keeper of the car in question he did not drive it on that day at all. He only uses that car very occasionally as he owns and drives a different one.
4. The PCN contained two digital images of the car (front and back), however on them there was no identifiable landmarks or street furniture identifying its location at the time, neither were any visible time stamps (copy of PCN in appendix 1)
5. Although the Defendant strongly suspected that the PCN was a scam, he decided to visit the location of the alleged contravention.
6. There was no visible parking restriction signage at the approach to the park (photo in appendix 3)
7. Whilst driving slowly looking around the Defendant noticed some signage on the left, however he was unable to absorb any information written on it apart from the white letter P on a blue square. (photo in appendix 4)
8. The Defendant did have to look away from the direction of driving to notice the sign.
9. Driving further on the Defendant did notice a pronounced sign of Range the store (photo in appendix 5)
10. The Defendant entered that store and asked a manager if their customers were reporting getting fined for parking there.
11. The manager replied with some exasperation that there were literally hundreds of cases where customers complained about effectively being penalised for spending their hard earned money at that retail park and that he was very frustrated at being unable to help them.
12. Upon the Defendant’s return home he decided to appeal the penalty (copy of my appeal in appendix 5)
13. The appeal was subsequently rejected, however the Defendant decided against paying the charge as he thought that it was totally unjustified.
14. The Defendant chose to ignore subsequent demands from Britannia and their alleged debt recovery agents as he considered them fraudulent.
15. Towards the end of August 2018 on returning from his 2 weeks’ summer holiday the Defendant found a letter from BW Legal dated 15th August.
16. The letter was to inform him that BW Legal was instructed by Britannia Parking Limited to recover from him £160 balance due (appendix 6).
17. The Defendant replied by email on 29th August explaining his point of view (appendix 7).

18. The following day the Defendant received a Letter of Claim from BW Legal dated 28th August which warned him of an impending legal action potentially resulting in a £241.25 court claim unless he has paid the £160 balance by 2nd October 2018 (appendix 8).

19. As it was clear that their correspondence criss-crossed each other the Defendant wrote another email on the 7th September in which he advised BW Legal that he would be disregarding their Letter of Claim pending a receipt of further evidence from them (appendix 9).

20. On the 8th September the Defendant received a letter from BW Legal containing copies of his previous correspondence with Britannia Parking and at last pictures of the car with visible time stamps on them. Still there was nothing to link those pictures with the location of the alleged contravention.

21. The Defendant replied to that letter by email on the 21st September, advising BW Legal that their evidence was insufficient for him to accept. An exchange of emails followed where each party got entrenched in their own positions (appendix 10).

22. In late October the Defendant received a notice of a county court claim issued (dated 19th October)

23. Following that notice the Defendant started preparing his defence, in which process several facts came to light:

24. The Companies House records showed the company which issued the original PCN as being dormant (appendix 11). That meant that there were unable to pursue their claim in Court.
25. There was no evidence whatsoever that that company had an authorisation from the Landowner to operate at that location.
26. The Landowner at the time of the alleged contravention was Benson Elliott (appendix 12)
27. BW Legal subsequently provided a copy of an agreement between Britannia Parking Services Limited (company number 8187238) as a Supplier and Care Facilities Management as a Customer permitting the former exclusively administering and collecting fees in respect of parking at the car park in question.
28. There was no evidence therein of any relations between the Landowner and Care Facilities Management
29. The Supplier was a different company to the one which issued the PCN.

Castle

IloveBritannia wrote: »

WITNESS STATEMENT
2. Towards the end of November 2017 the Defendant received in the post a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) from Britannia Parking (Registered in England No. 08182990) for allegedly exceeding the maximum stay on the Slough Retail Park car park on the 16th November 2017.

(a) Unless they really did call it a Penalty charge notice always refer to it a Parking Charge Notice
(b) You need the full name here; Britannia Parking Group Ltd.

Other quick comments;-
12. You appealed the parking charge not the penalty
18. Was the letter of claim also in the name of Britannia Parking Ltd; if so mention it.
24. The company which issued the original PCN is NOT DORMANT; it's the claimant which is.

Coupon-mad

"The facts of the case are as set out in my original defence, and I rely on that document as a true account."

Bargepole meant to start with that line, not then repeat the defence at all, it's not needed if you start with that line.

You could even put 'My defence is repeated.' (THEN NOT REPEAT IT, OBVIOUSLY!).

Coupon-Mad,
Do you think I should mention the dormant Britannia in my evidence?

100% yes! There is no risk of them getting around this surely fatal matter. It's not even a loophole, it's a sink hole for them.

They cannot change the Claimant to another legal entity. If the Claim form says it's from 'Britannia Parking Ltd' then that's a dormant company and they should be STUFFED by a clued up Judge who reads that and hears it from you with your evidence.