Britannia + BW Legal court papers

IloveBritannia

twhitehousescat wrote: »

was that brittania ltd or group ? and COMPANY NUMBER please

It's a headed letter from Britannia Parking, signed as Britannia Parking Limited.

At the footer it says:
https://www.britpark.com
Britannia Parking is a registered Trading Name of Britannia Parking Group Limited and any of its wholly owned subsidiaries.
Registered office: Britannia Parking Group, 7th floor, 300 Poole Rd
Registered in England No. 08182990

IloveBritannia

twhitehousescat wrote: »

but do the company we are referring to have access to DVLA data , or have they asked AN OTHER to get info ?

they weren't dormant back then...

Castle

twhitehousescat wrote: »

but do the company we are referring to have access to DVLA data , or have they asked AN OTHER to get info ?

Britannia Parking Ltd are not trading, so they wouldn't have access to DVLA.

IloveBritannia

twhitehousescat wrote: »

ask mr clark at the BPA , whilst you are asking him about the grace periods

steve.c@britishparking.co.uk

unfortunately that won't help me, I've got to file my defence by tomorrow 4pm...

Coupon-mad

No, it's not fraudulent and 'Britannia Parking' being a trading name of the group, is not the same as Britannia Parking Ltd.

However...some landowner contracts are in the name of a dormant company - Britannia Parking Services Ltd and don't match the signs/NTK. That is a winning point!

Should I then skip all the other arguments and just put to the court that the claim should be dismissed as the claimant is a dormant company?

No. I'm hoping you realise a defence doesn't end the matter or see them off? There will be a hearing in the New Year.

Some changes suggested here, as surely THIS is your main defence point:

12. The alleged overstay was 17 minutes but this was time spent in moving traffic, arriving, driving round to find a parking space, parking & locking the car, reading the signs, and at the end, a reasonable period of grace, to leave. This is not a 'period of parking' (under the POFA definition) that was in any way exceeded. Any contravention of allowed parking time is denied.

12.1. Further, the claimed timing is not accepted. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the synchronisation of the timer relating to the entry camera and the separate timer at the exit and the reliability of the timestamps on the images and the position of the car, and are required to disclose how many images exist of the car in those two places on the roadway.

12.2. Even if this is evidenced to be the location stated, the exit photograph shows the car no longer in the private car park, but queuing or slowly approaching a main road/public highway at an unidentified exit roadway junction. This is clearly non-parking activity that in itself can take several minutes of queuing or waiting at a junction, especially at busy periods when a driver cannot drive straight out. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the length of time the VRN was captured approaching and/or waiting at the exit, and must produce all consecutive raw images, not just the final one that the Defendant avers can add minutes to the alleged 'overstay', given the fact that an ANPR camera can read a number plate every second.

12.3. Even if the Claimant can demonstrate that the car was indeed 'on site' and in the car park for a proven and synchronised 17 minutes in addition to the 3 hours of free parking, this would have been entirely within the grace periods [STRIKE]appertained in the[/STRIKE] set out in paragraph 13 of BPA Code of Practice (BPA CoP).

12.4. The version of mandatory CoP rules applicable at the time of this parking event allowed the driver two periods either side of allowed parking time. The first was a reasonable 'observation period' in which to decide if they were going to stay or go (which would have included driving in, looking for a space, parking & locking the car, then reading T&Cs displayed in the signage). The second was an additional stand-alone 'grace period' at the end of the parking period which the BPA CoP stated was to be a minimum of 10 minutes.

12.5. It is averred that this Claimant has failed to pay regard to the mandatory CoP which was considered effectively 'regulation' by the Judges at the Supreme Court. The Claimant's case appears to be based on the inherently flawed position that a driver can be penalised for taking just 7 minutes on arrival to find a space and park and read the signs at a busy retail park, just weeks before Christmas.

IloveBritannia

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You haven't got the usual BW Legal Bagri point near the end, as found in other BW Legal defences and found by searching for those keywords.

Was it about robo-claims? I was just a bit apprehensive that the judge could have seen that in many other defences and treated mine as a robo-defence


Many thanks for editing my overstay section, I totally agree that that is the strongest point of my defence

Coupon-mad

DON'T BOTHER WITH THE POINT ABOUT £50 LEGAL FEES / BAGRI.

IloveBritannia

OK, here goes hopefully the last version


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 but this would have been time spent in moving traffic, arriving, driving round to find a parking space, parking & locking the car, reading the signs, and at the end, a reasonable period of grace, to leave. This is not a 'period of parking' (under the POFA definition) that was in any way exceeded. Any contravention of allowed parking time is denied.

12.1. Further, the claimed timing is not accepted. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the synchronisation of the timer relating to the entry camera and the separate timer at the exit and the reliability of the timestamps on the images and the position of the car, and are required to disclose how many images exist of the car in those two places on the roadway.

12.2. Even if this is evidenced to be the location stated, the exit photograph shows the car no longer in the private car park, but queuing or slowly approaching a main road/public highway at an unidentified exit roadway junction. This is clearly non-parking activity that in itself can take several minutes of queuing or waiting at a junction, especially at busy periods when a driver cannot drive straight out. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the length of time the VRN was captured approaching and/or waiting at the exit, and must produce all consecutive raw images, not just the final one that the Defendant avers can add minutes to the alleged 'overstay', given the fact that an ANPR camera can read a number plate every second.

12.3. Even if the Claimant can demonstrate that the car was indeed 'on site' and in the car park for a proven and synchronised 17 minutes in addition to the 3 hours of free parking, this would have been entirely within the grace periods set out in paragraph 13 of BPA Code of Practice (BPA CoP).

12.4. The version of mandatory CoP rules applicable at the time of this parking event allowed the driver two periods either side of allowed parking time. The first was a reasonable 'observation period' in which to decide if they were going to stay or go (which would have included driving in, looking for a space, parking & locking the car, then reading T&Cs displayed in the signage). The second was an additional stand-alone 'grace period' at the end of the parking period which the BPA CoP stated was to be a minimum of 10 minutes.

12.5. It is averred that this Claimant has failed to pay regard to the mandatory CoP which was considered effectively 'regulation' by the Judges at the Supreme Court. The Claimant's case appears to be based on the inherently flawed position that a driver can be penalised for taking just 7 minutes on arrival to find a space and park and read the signs at a busy retail park, just weeks before Christmas.

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
Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs. Given the fact that BW Legal boasted in Bagri v BW Legal Ltd of processing 'millions' of claims with an admin team (and only a handful of solicitors), the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities.

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.

Coupon-mad

Yes - except you need the usual headings and the Statement of truth and signature/date.

IloveBritannia

Sure!

I don't really know how to thank you Coupon-Mad, and also all the other people who selflessly contributed their time to helping me and other hapless RKs...
:beer::T:T:T:T:T