Britania parking and BW Legal

BT1997242

Le_Kirk wrote: »

If these are papers from Northampton County Court Business Centre, there will be an issue date - please let us know what it is. Also, you don't fill in bits of paper, you do it on-line by using MCOL (the court papers should tell you how but if not just go the NEWBIE sticky post # 2 and look at the link for how to use MCOL. Once you have done that you will gain some more time to compile your defence.

Once you are into the process and have submitted a defence, you will receive a DQ (all explained in that same post # 2 as above) and you will be able to select your local court.

Hi,

I've just completed the online form and acknowledged service, I'm now in the process of formulating a defence, based on the info I've given on the threed would you suggest any lines of argument for my defence?

I've also read up and the address to service is Northampton however it'll be addressed at my local county court no problem there my bad.

Thanks

Le_Kirk

Best way to start your defence (as only you know why you are defending) is to look at one of the concise defences posted by Bargepole in the NEWBIE sticky post # 2 and adapt and expand one that is closest to your circumstances. Once done, post it here for critique.

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

BT1997242

Issue date is 8th of Feb

Coupon-mad

OK so now do this, show us your draft, easier than you think, to copy & adapt:

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Best way to start your defence (as only you know why you are defending) is to look at one of the concise defences posted by Bargepole in the NEWBIE sticky post # 2 and adapt and expand one that is closest to your circumstances.

Once done, post it here for critique.

BT1997242

I'm on it, will post tonight:money:

KeithP

BT1997242 wrote: »

Issue date is 8th of Feb

With a Claim Issue Date of 8th February, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 13th March 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over a month away - but it's a short month. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

BT1997242

Hi Guys,

If i could get some constructive help on what I need to do here that would be great.

Many thanks!

IN THE COUNTY COURT Claim No:
BETWEEN:
Britannia Parking Ltd (Claimant) vs XXXXXX (defendant)

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at XXXXXXX on XXXXX

2. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £160 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

3. The Claimant has spent almost 6 months harassing the Defendant with ever increasing and intimidating demands pursuing this baseless charge, sending debt collector letters, phone calls, emails and causing the Defendant and their family significant distress, despite having no basis to charge £160.

4. 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, especially with no 'grace period' mentioned or additional £60 legal fee. Any reasonably circumspect driver would be entitled to rely upon the BPA's interpretation.

5. Further, the Defendant appealed the unfair PCN, but the Claimant successfully appealed the charge but when attempted payment was made without a discounted rate being offered the claimant refused to accept that the payment period for appeal was fair and wouldn’t accept the fee. The defendant also offered a without prejudice offer of settlement which the claimant also turned down (designed to resolve the dispute in good faith) and instead demanded a punitive £160.

6. In any case, the Claimant is put to strict proof that it had sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it had the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation in its own name on the material date. The Claimant appears to be a contractor on an agent/principal basis operating under a bare licence to erect signs and collect monies from the machines, and no doubt, to issue PCNs - but 'on behalf of' the landowner, which would give them no authority or standing.

7. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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.

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.

8.1. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim, where there was no breach, no right to issue a PCN within the time limit due to the lack of information on signage stating this grace period.

8.1.1 Differences in facts include but are not limited to: The signs/terms were not prominent (grace periods being a 'misleading omission' on the signage, contrary to the CPUTRs); the PCN breached the BPA CoP; the Claimant refused to accept a £10 cheque; the Defendant did not ignore the PCN; this was not a free car park which complicated the decision in Beavis, and the PCN bore no resemblance to the advertised tariff. As such, this case is fully distinguished in all respects from Beavis, where the decision turned on a legitimate interest in charging more as a deterrent, and clear notices proclaiming brief terms and an agreed contractual sum that did not impact on the rights and interests of drivers.

The Defendant avers that the factually-different Beavis decision confirms the assertion that this charge is unconscionable, given the facts of this case. To quote from the Supreme Court:

i) Para 108: ''But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85''.

ii) Para 199: ''What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 [...] is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests. Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so.''

iii) Para 205: ''The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.''

KeithP

Patience is a virtue.

You have a whole month to refine your Defence.

By all means bump your thread, but posting exactly the same thing - is it the same thing? - three days running won't get a response any quicker.

BT1997242

Apologies but the reason for me bumping my thread is to ensure my defence is in asap and that my case can happen sooner rather than later, I leave the country in the summer for nearly three months, the last thing I want is a court case stopping me leaving.

many thanks