Britannia + BW Legal court papers

IloveBritannia

Guys, you've been absolutely brilliant, I cannot thank you enough!

Do you think that I've got enough ammunition now to repel the enemy?

twhitehousescat

I would actually stir some **** with the BPA , lets here the reply , send them copy of NTK showing times and copy of court papers ask them WHAT is or was the grace period on that car park

and unless they tell brittania to "do one" , it will along with code of practice be made public

Redx

as above

post your amended defence below, with an extra short numbered paragraph that states the breach of clause #13 , altering the subsequent numbers to suit

then await further comments

IloveBritannia

twhitehousescat wrote: »

I would actually stir some **** with the BPA , lets here the reply , send them copy of NTK showing times and copy of court papers ask them WHAT is or was the grace period on that car park

I definitely will do!

twhitehousescat

they wont tell you , rules state the operator must tell them , but they wont tell you , however there "name" may be tainted and further complaints would be made

twhitehousescat

"tainted" ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, sorry I was trying to be polite:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

twhitehousescat

Castle wrote: »

Britannia Parking Group Ltd-a different company, (and a different legal entity).

OP

what is the full name and the company number given on NTK and other junk mail from bri???????????????

IloveBritannia

This is the updated draft of my defence:

IloveBritannia wrote: »

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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

2. The Defendant is the Registered Keeper of the vehicle which registration is the subject of the PCN however it is denied that he was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention.

3. The Defendant puts the Claimant to full proof of the location of the alleged contravention. The Claim relies on two pictures of the car showing no identifiable landmarks which could have been taken anywhere.

4. There can be no assumed ‘keeper liability' as Britannia Parking Ltd have failed the POFA requirements for 'adequate notice' of the unexpected parking charge and no 'relevant contract' known or accepted, unlike in the Parking Eye v Beavis case where the Defendant confirmed he knew about the terms.

5. Due to the sparseness of the Particulars of Claim it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, 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.

6. Having inspected the site of the alleged contravention the Defendant notes that Claimant's entrance signage was positioned in such way that it couldn't be read by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

7. In addition the Claimant is in breach of paragraph 18.11 of British Parking Association Code of Practice which states that ‘where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you should make these clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you should consider a grace period to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes’.

8. The car park in question had had no stay restrictions whatsoever for the previous 20 years, yet not only was the signage made not prominent enough, there was no grace period offered either. That has resulted in an unusually high number of customers receiving PCNs at that location during the initial months of the new parking regime being in operation.

9. The Claimant is also in breach of paragraph 20.14 of British Parking Association Code of Practice which specifies that ‘when serving a Notice to Keeper, you must also include information telling the keeper the ’reasonable cause’ you had for asking the DVLA for their details’. No such information was included in the NTK received by the Defendant.

10. The Claimant is also in breach of paragraph 22.8 of BPA CoP which states that ‘You must acknowledge or reply to the appeal within 14 days of receiving it’. The Claimant received the Defendant’s appeal against the PCN on 17/12/2017 only to respond on 11/01/2018 which was 25 days later.

11. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

12. The alleged overstay was 17 minutes. This would have been entirely within the grace periods appertained in the paragraph 13 of BDA CoP which implies allowing the driver a reasonable 'grace period' in which to decide if they are going to stay or go (which would have included reading T&Cs displayed in the signage) and also a grace period at the end of the parking period which should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

13. 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 is given and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery and also £50 legal representative costs neither of which are not permitted under CPR 27.14

14. 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.

Name
Signature
Date

KeithP

Paras 4 and 6, whilst talking about different things, both refer to "what legal basis has the claim been brought".

Perhaps para 4 is superfluous.

IloveBritannia

KeithP wrote: »

Paras 4 and 6, whilst talking about different things, both refer to "what legal basis has the claim been brought".

Perhaps para 4 is superfluous.

That's a valid point, I've just noticed it myself. I wanted to mention the 'keepers liability' in order to refute it in the paragraph below