Britania parking and BW Legal

BT1997242

Thank you thats reassuring to know that I can adjust dates regarding travel, as I was overstaying I have attempted to settle with them with the WOP offer but they're a nightmare.

My draft defence is below, I know I need to print, sign and email and also add a statement of truth, how long does that need to be at the end of my defence?

Here's what I have so far, again thank you, I really do appreciate the words of encouragement.

IN THE COUNTY COURT Claim No:
BETWEEN:
Britannia Parking Ltd (Claimant) vs Mr. XXXX (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 XXXX, XXXXX 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. The Claimant has further failed to comply with Practice Direction by refusing to respond to the Defendants request to use an independent form of dispute resolution.

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 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (the POFA) 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 for three PCNs, a maximum of £300 depending on the Claimant's full compliance with the POFA and establishing a breach of a 'relevant obligation' and/or 'relevant contract' from adequately prominent, large lettering terms on copious and clear signage.

8.1 This claim inflates the total to an eye-watering £238.48, in a clear attempt at double recovery. The Defendant trusts that the presiding Judge will recognise this wholly unreasonable conduct as a gross abuse of process and may consider using the court's case management powers to strike the claim out of the court's own volition. The acid test is whether the conduct permits of a reasonable explanation, but the Defendant avers it cannot.

8.2 According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already renumerated clerical staff working for a firm of solicitors in issuing robo-claims.

8.3 Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs at all. The Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims at all.

8.4 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. It is also a fact that debt collection agencies act on a no-win-no-fee basis for parking operators, so no such costs have been incurred in truth. Thus, there can be no 'damages' to pile on top of any parking charge claim, nor 'indemnity costs if applicable', whatever that cut&paste phrase may mean. The Claimant knows this, as do their solicitors who charge little or no fee to IPC members, given the connection between Gladstones and the IPC Trade Body, and the Defendant asks that the Court takes judicial notice of this repeated abuse of consumers rights and remedies, caused by IPC/Gladstones' clients artificially inflating their robo-claims.

Coupon-mad

Have a look at bargepole's example defences in the NEWBIES thread, as they show the headings at the top and the bits & bats to add at the end.

Have you got three PCNs, if not why haven't you edited point #8 about that?!

And remove this as it's already in #8:

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.

And remove these partial sentences, leaving the bits either side to then come together to form a coherent sentence:

nor 'indemnity costs if applicable', whatever that cut&paste phrase may mean. The Claimant knows this, as do their solicitors who charge little or no fee to IPC members, given the connection between Gladstones and the IPC Trade Body,

Needs to go because BW Legal don't use that phrase, and Britannia are BPA, not an IPC member.

BT1997242

I've used two of the newbie threads to create the defence as well as the one you sent me with the appropriate changes now made. The threads I'm finding on the newbies section are from you I believe though and not bargepole. Below is what i have so far, would you say I should look to add to it or am I in danger of making the defence too long and waffling?

Here is the draft:

IN THE COUNTY COURT Claim No:
BETWEEN:
Britannia Parking Ltd (Claimant) vs XXXX (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 XXXX, XXXX on XXXX

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. The Claimant has further failed to comply with Practice Direction by refusing to respond to the Defendants request to use an independent form of dispute resolution.

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 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (the POFA) 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, which is a maximum of £300 depending on the Claimant's full compliance with the POFA and establishing a breach of a 'relevant obligation' and/or 'relevant contract' from adequately prominent, large lettering terms on copious and clear signage.

7.1 This claim inflates the total to an eye-watering £238.48, in a clear attempt at double recovery. The Defendant trusts that the presiding Judge will recognise this wholly unreasonable conduct as a gross abuse of process and may consider using the court's case management powers to strike the claim out of the court's own volition. The acid test is whether the conduct permits of a reasonable explanation, but the Defendant avers it cannot.

7.2 According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already renumerated clerical staff working for a firm of solicitors in issuing robo-claims.

7.3 Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs at all. The Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims at all.

7.4 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. It is also a fact that debt collection agencies act on a no-win-no-fee basis for parking operators, so no such costs have been incurred in truth. Thus, there can be no 'damages' to pile on top of any parking charge claim, and the Defendant asks that the Court takes judicial notice of this repeated abuse of consumers rights and remedies, caused by IPC/Gladstones' clients artificially inflating their robo-claims.

I believe the facts obtained in this Defence are true

Name

Signature

Date

Coupon-mad

You still have this that's based on 3 x £100:

which is a maximum of £300

Should be £100 or whatever the parking charge was, if less (not the discounted one).

And the statement of truth is not worded right (no 'obtained'!). It should be:

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this defence are true.

Looks good to email to the CCBC AQ email address, once signed & dated, BUT not till the 12th/13th March, if you have done the AOS already to buy that time.

BT1997242

Thank you again so much, the defence has been adjusted like you said and I've also changed the statement of truth. By sending at that later date am I doing so to improve the chances of the case being held later or to reduce the risk it looks as though the defence is rushed? I will re-post once the defence sent and the DSQ received. In the meantime I will use any available time I have to conduct a WS. Again I really appreciate your help, thank you.

Final draft defence for reference:

IN THE COUNTY COURT Claim No: XXX
BETWEEN:
Britannia Parking Ltd (Claimant) vs Mr. XXXX (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 XXXX, XXXX on XXXX

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. The Claimant has further failed to comply with Practice Direction by refusing to respond to the Defendants request to use an independent form of dispute resolution.

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 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (the POFA) 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, which is a maximum of £100 depending on the Claimant's full compliance with the POFA and establishing a breach of a 'relevant obligation' and/or 'relevant contract' from adequately prominent, large lettering terms on copious and clear signage.

7.1 This claim inflates the total to an eye-watering £238.48, in a clear attempt at double recovery. The Defendant trusts that the presiding Judge will recognise this wholly unreasonable conduct as a gross abuse of process and may consider using the court's case management powers to strike the claim out of the court's own volition. The acid test is whether the conduct permits of a reasonable explanation, but the Defendant avers it cannot.

7.2 According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already renumerated clerical staff working for a firm of solicitors in issuing robo-claims.

7.3 Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs at all. The Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims at all.

7.4 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. It is also a fact that debt collection agencies act on a no-win-no-fee basis for parking operators, so no such costs have been incurred in truth. Thus, there can be no 'damages' to pile on top of any parking charge claim, and the Defendant asks that the Court takes judicial notice of this repeated abuse of consumers rights and remedies, caused by IPC/Gladstones' clients artificially inflating their robo-claims.

The defendant believes that the facts stated in this defence are true.

Name: Mr. XXXX

Signature:

Date: 15.02.2019

Coupon-mad

Job done! Nice work, as good a defence as you can get for an overstay case.

By sending at that later date am I doing so to improve the chances of the case being held later

Yes, that is the only reason. Very important you diarise this and do the CCBC AQ email on the night before, or the morning of 13th.

BT1997242

Great, I will mark an alert in my diary for that date and get it sent over by email, in the meantime I'll get it signed and scanned ready.

Many thanks again for your help and I'll be sure to post once I get the DSQ, am I right in thinking there's a guide to follow when filling out the questionnaire?

Many thanks

Coupon-mad

Yes, look at bargepole's post about 'what happens when' that I've linked in the NEWBIES thread. He talks you through each question in the DQ N180.