BWLegal LBC letter

Coupon-mad

Leave that out IMHO. It lends nothing to your case and could be viewed as a rant.

ggwp

Thanks Coupon-Mad.

I am posting here my final tidied up defence for reference. I will be emailing this within the next couple of hours.

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

Britannia Parking Ltd (Claimant)
and
Me (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to part of, or any of, the sum claimed

2. The Defendant denies any breach of contract, and further denies that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant’s alleged £100 ‘Parking Charge Notice (PCN)’.

3. To the best of the Defendant’s knowledge, as registered keeper of the vehicle at the time, the driver fully complied with car park rules by parking within the allowed time permitted, including reasonable Grace Periods which are outlined in the British Parking Association's (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP) clause number 13

4. The Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action within the Particulars of Claim. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached: whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass

5. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract

6. 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

7. The Claimant has disregarded many parts of the BPA CoP including clauses: 13.2/13.4 - Grace Periods have seemingly been ignored; 20.5 - photographs do not show the car parked; 22.1/22.2 - not allowing the Defendant to appeal; 22.12 - the Claimant refused the Defendant’s appeal, and refused to give out a Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) code for an independent appeal; 22.3 - the Defendant was not provided photographic evidence upon multiple requests

7.1 The Defendant would also like to reiterate the point that no proof of any parking infraction involving the vehicle in question was shown to the Defendant by the Claimant until a Subject Access Request was sent, over a year after the issue date - to the Defendant, it seemed like a scam: harassment from Debt Collection companies and threats of Court regarding a completely unknown event. Multiple requests for proof were requested, as well as multiple requests for an appeal. All were ignored and/or refused

8.The Claimant has failed the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 and so the defendant is not liable under the POFA 2012

8.1 The Defendant believes that the Claimant has not followed the correct procedures outlined in the POFA 2012 by identifying who the driver of the vehicle was and therefore the Defendant, as keeper, is not liable for the charge

8.2 In the alternative, POFA 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. It was held in the Supreme Court in Beavis (where £85 was claimed, and no more) that a private parking charge already includes a very significant and high percentage in profit and more than covers the costs of running an automated regime of template letters

9. The Defendant hopes that the presiding Judge will see this gross and unfair abuse of process and may consider using the court’s case management powers to strike the claim out of the court's own volition

10. The POC also attempts to claim for an additional £60 which is not explained or calculated, which could even be an attempt at double recovery. These costs are not permitted under CPR 27.14

For the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss this Claim in its entirety, and to award the Defendant such witness costs for attendance at trial as are permissible pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

ggwp

Time to rant! Last weekend I went to the car park in question to take photos of signage and the layout of the car park. We drove in, stopped for a minute to read and take photos of the sign and then left. I now have a NEW PARKING TICKET claiming we were parked there for over an hour... I have dash cam proof showing everything, so I'm going to appeal straight away, but this proves their ANPR cameras are not working correctly...

ggwp

Back again

So following on from my last post, the second Parking Ticket was rescinded. This pretty much proves that the ANPR used is unfit for purpose.

Further to the submitted Defence, the Court had deemed the Claimant's Particular's unfit for purpose and demanded they re-write them by a certain date or the case be struck out.

Unfortunately, this new Particular's of Claim was provided on the final day! And more annoyingly it has 29 points.

Is it expected that the Defence answers each point? Some of the points are just stating something which seems irrelevant to me...

So simply I have 2 questions:
1) Can I use the ANPR issue in my defence? Can investigations into the car park since the fact be used?
2) Does every Particular need to be replied to?

Thanks!

KeithP

Why not post up the Particulars?
Then someone will be able to more easily answer your questions.

Didn't the Court Order give you additional time to file an amended Defence, having received revised Particulars?

ggwp

https://ibb.co/r0y4xd9
https://ibb.co/6Xv4qBG
https://ibb.co/RpXZrYF
https://ibb.co/LrHtM5n
https://ibb.co/WzVX6cs

5 pages worth! And you're correct, I was given 7 days to amend my Defence with a couple days to go.

nosferatu1001

Every item they Claim you have to accept, deny, or state you can neither accept or deny. So youc an do a catch all - everythign not expressly accepted is denied.