2 separate letters from BW Legal - Britannia Parking

Coupon-mad

mixMZ wrote: »

what about my previous question:

Both CCBC claims / PCNs relate to same car park and are worded same way (only difference is amount claimed that differs by aporx £2)
should I do AOS for both claims individually or should I somehow try to consolidate them into 1 claim?

You then do this, like you will see in all similar double claim threads:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75304612#Comment_75304612

Keep at it as there is no way the courts should sanction duplicate hearings.

mixMZ

Ready to submit my defence:

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 in question. The particulars of the claim, state the legal basis is brought against the Defendant for ‘breach of terms of parking’ by the driver. 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 when parking at Southampton - West Quay Retail Park, on xx/xx/2016 at 15:39

2.1. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £70 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant; was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle; Honda under registration xxxx. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.

4. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle. ‘Keeper liability’ under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) is dependent upon full compliance with that Act. It is submitted that the Claimant’s Parking Charge Notice and/or Notice to Keeper failed to comply with the statutory wording and/or deadlines set by the POFA. Any non-compliance voids any right to ‘keeper liability’.

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

7. In addition to the original PCN penalty, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added 'costs' of £60. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs.

8. The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. However, with no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant is fully aware that their claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail.

9. The Claimant may try to rely on Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1453.. However the vehicle is not registered to the Defendant as a company vehicle and there is no Employer liability holding the Defendant liable for the actions of the Driver.

10. 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.

11. Claimant is abusing the process by issuing additional claim: xxxxx
Both claims should have been filed as one single claim as the facts are duplicated.

Should the Court agree and combine the cases, defence in claim no. xxxx will suffice as a 'test case' defence to represent both cases and save duplication and the court's time.


I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

mixMZ

specially if that part is correct

mixMZ wrote: »

11. Claimant is abusing the process by issuing additional claim: xxxxx
Both claims should have been filed as one single claim as the facts are duplicated.

Should the Court agree and combine the cases, defence in claim no. xxxx will suffice as a 'test case' defence to represent both cases and save duplication and the court's time.

thx

Coupon-mad

Looks good to me.

All that's missing is an objection to the total (the stupid, made up 'costs') claimed and in your case you could lump the 2 claim totals together when you talk about £200 (x 2 PCNs) being inflated to an eye-watering £xxx.xx like this:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75304578#Comment_75304578

...because in your case why should you be liable for two sets of court fees, plus those made up costs that don't exist, to the tune of (probably) over £500 in play?!

You can use that wording, just adapt the total to show the total of both claims (and make it clear that's where the figure comes from).

mixMZ

Just a quick update.
Received DQs for both claims directly from BWlegal as expected.
I have just received DQs for those claims also from CCBC - obviously in separate posts.

Can someone please clarify couple things for me.

On the Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track it says I need to complete form N180 and file it with the court office (CCBC) and serve copies on all other parties.

1. So do I just fill that attached form from CCBC that and send it back to CCBC + I do print off additional form (copy) and send it separately to BWLegal or just send both forms to CCBC ?

2. Section B - Do i have to write my mobile/telephone number ? - I dont mind providing that to court but as both forms needs to be exact the same I am just worried I may start to receive calls from BWlegal and I dont want them to know my number.

3. I noticed that on DQs I received from BWlegal they stated they do agreee for mediation service and also confirmed in section E they havent included fee with this form - as its bwlegal / britania both tickets from 2016 - non POFA compliant - at what stage they will back of? If i remember correctly Coupon-mad mentioned somewhere that Britania dont go to Courts:)

4. Can I send those DQs for both claims together or they need to be sent separately?

KeithP

It really is simple.

Send each completed DQ to the CCBC using the same email address and the same manner as you sent your Defence.
Refresh your memory by re-reading post #38 above.

Send a copy of each completed DQ to the Claimant - address on each Claim Form.

Remember to remind the CCBC, and of course the Claimant, that these two claims should be combined at the earliest opportunity.

You don't need to provide a mobile telephone number.

mixMZ

Received 2 letters from local Court where each of them says that my claim will be heard at Southampton County Court on 2 August 2019 (same time for both claims) - at least both cases are merged.

Some days after receiving those letters I also received 2 letters from BW Legal with a "Response to Your Defence" and then with their discounted offers:)

part of my Defence was:

4. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle. ‘Keeper liability’ under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) is dependent upon full compliance with that Act. It is submitted that the Claimant’s Parking Charge Notice and/or Notice to Keeper failed to comply with the statutory wording and/or deadlines set by the POFA. Any non-compliance voids any right to ‘keeper liability’.

and that`s their response

Having reviewed your defence, we note that you deny being the driver at the Contravention Date.
Furthermore, you made an allegation that our client has failed to comply with Schedule 4 of the POFA2012. For your information, where a PCN is affixed to a vehicle, 56 days is required to deliver a Notice to Keeper to the address of the registered keeper of the vehicle.
56 days are from the date on which the Contravention took place and the PCN was issued.
The 56 days are made up of 28 days from the date of the incident, after which an application must be made to the DVLA for keeper details + 28 days to obtain the data and serve the notice by post.
In your case, a PCN was affixed to your vehicle on the 27/10/2016 and the notice to keeper was served on the 28/11/2016. Therefore, our client does see any merit to your defence.
Given that you failed to disclose the name of the driver within the 28 days from the notice, our client is able to issue the claim against you as registered keeper.

I haven't mentioned to BW legal or in my defence about POFA wording which makes those tickets non POFA compliant.
So they are probably bluffing trying to make me think I might be wrong...

And then they say this:

Without Prejudice Save as to Costs

The Offer
Strictly without prejudice, our client is willing to offer you discount on the total balance due.

- they want now £180 per each claim:)

It is important that you call us before the 14 day period expires to discuss the options available to you.

If you have not taken any of the action above bofere the deadline expires, we are instructed to proceed with our client`s claim with a view to obtain County Court Judgment against you for the full balance owed, including costs and interest.

Letter from Court says this:

5) Each party must deliver to the other party and the court office copies of all documents on which that party intends to rely at the hearing by 4pm on 10 May 2019. The original documents must be brought to the hearing.
The judge may refuse to consider a document or take it into account if copy of it has not been sent to the other-party as requested by this order.

11) Unless the claimant dose by 4pm on the 10 May 2019 pay to the court the trial fee of £25 or file a properly completed application (i.e one which provides all the required information in the manner requested) for help with fees, then the claim will be struck out with effect from 10 May 2019 without further order and, unless the court orders otherwise, you will also be liable for the costs which the defendant has incurred.

If i remember correctly Coupon-mad mentioned somewhere that Britania don't go to Courts. I really don't want to waste Yours and my time writing 10-page long WS only to find out at the end that ,both cases are struck out as BWlegal didn't pay their fee etc...

Should I write a basic WS saying that I cannot remember a thing relating to those tickets that took place 2,5 year ago and mention only points from pofa2012 that proves they are non pofa compliant?

please advise what should I do as a MINIMUM that is required.

Umkomaas

I haven't mentioned to BW legal or in my defence about POFA wording which makes those tickets non POFA compliant.
So they are probably bluffing trying to make me think I might be wrong...

But doesn’t this effectively say that?

4. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle. ‘Keeper liability’ under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) is dependent upon full compliance with that Act. It is submitted that the Claimant’s Parking Charge Notice and/or Notice to Keeper failed to comply with the statutory wording and/or deadlines set by the POFA. Any non-compliance voids any right to ‘keeper liability’.

If i remember correctly Coupon-mad mentioned somewhere that Britania don't go to Courts.

That must have been some months ago. Their MO has changed somewhat since their link up with BWL. However we have yet to see any real surge in actual court hearings.

I think they will go for the soft option of judgments in default where there’s no response from the defendant, but where there’s a robust defence from a savvy defendant, then maybe a discontinuation.

But I don’t think we can any longer provide the blanket advice, ‘Brit don’t do court, so ignore them’.

Coupon-mad

If i remember correctly Coupon-mad mentioned somewhere that Britania don't go to Courts. I really don't want to waste Yours and my time writing 10-page long WS only to find out at the end that ,both cases are struck out as BWlegal didn't pay their fee etc...

Unlikely these days, as Umkomaas said.

Should I write a basic WS saying that I cannot remember a thing relating to those tickets that took place 2,5 year ago and mention only points from pofa2012 that proves they are non pofa compliant?

No, you would be grabbing possible defeat from the jaws of victory.

please advise what should I do as a MINIMUM that is required.

Hmmm...if you were my relative I'd tell you to do the MAXIMUM you can.

Your WS needs to nail the issues including unclear signage/no contract as well as expounding on any POFA failures (which Britannia did used to fail on as we know!).

mixMZ

Purely my mistake,
I completely mixed up dates by when i must file WS with all evidence.

It has to be done by tomorrow (10-May by 4pm), I got some parts of it and need to put everything together but the thing is I still haven't received any WS pack from BW Legal? I just phoned Court and they confirmed that claimant also hasn't filed WS but already paid hearing fees for both cases?

If their pack arrives Tomorrow or even Today they are not giving me much time to refute their points, Is that normal?