BW Legal and Britannia Parking

Umkomaas

Also not sure whether to refrain from identifying the driver in the Witness Statement, does it really matter now at this stage?

But you've not mentioned that Britannia have failed PoFA in your Defence, so I don't think you can pull it from up your sleeve now. If your wife was the driver there's no point in hiding behind PoFA when it's not already been put forward as a defence point.

If your wife was not the driver, it's too late to nominate the driver, but it does potentially leave a bit of a mess in court if the Judge asks the question.

Whatever, do not attempt to mislead the court in trying to worm your way around the question.

See if anyone else wants to comment on this point.

Castle

kernowkid007 wrote: »

Can anyone tell if the contract in the above posts can be brought into question, as it’s signed after the parking offence occurred.
Also not sure whether to refrain from identifying the driver in the Witness Statement, does it really matter now at this stage?

If you read the last paragraph on page 1, it states that it's only a "letter of authority" not the actual contract. The letter also refers to a different company Britannia Parking Services, (although they have managed to miss the "Ltd" off.)

kernowkid007

Thank you Castle, well spotted!
If I am understanding this correctly, this letter of authority was required in order to obtain vehicle information from the dvla.
In my wife’s case they sought vehicle information and issued the PCN 1 day before this letter of authority was signed by the land owner?

Coupon-mad

They didn't need a LoA to get DVLA data. They don't have to show it to the DVLA.

Are you saying the Defendant wasn't driving?

IF SO, then I say you can, IMHO, introduce the 'no keeper liability' argument at WS and evidence stage because it is statute law and I feel that you don't have to have cited the law of the land in a defence, to later call the PPC out on non-compliance.

Or do you mean the Defendant WAS driving and you are asking us if she should admit it? That's up to you but it makes it more difficult for the D who will look shifty in front of a Judge if they appear to be hiding material information, which is not a good stance.

We assume you've stayed on the forum all this time and read CEC16's thread about the November Southampton hearing, and know how to knock the added false £60 into a cocked hat? If not, read it and get the wording the D needs, from post #14 of the Abuse of Process thread by beamerguy.

kernowkid007

Ok CM, so I’m assuming they have submitted that LoA as evidence of authority to operate at the car park. I still think it’s worth adding to WS being that it was signed after parking offence?

I agree with your 4th paragraph.

I have read CEC16’s thread and many others regarding ‘abuse of process’, I think in my wife’s case it’ll be her best chance of victory.

Her only other arguments in the case are the signage- changed at some point from 2 months before and 4 months after the offence. Her time in car park is within free parking time as per new signage

Coupon-mad

I think in my wife’s case it’ll be her best chance of victory.

I don't. It is unlikely to win a case at a hearing IMHO and is not designed to be a defence against the actual PCN itself, only against the added false costs. Most Judges at the moment just cross out the £60 then hear the case against the actual PCN, so cases are not won in court on that argument.

Only a rare Judge like DJ Grand and DDJ Joseph at Warwick, recognise that it taints a claim and that a whole claim can be summarily struck out due to the added £60.

Her main argument is likely to be inadequate signs/changed signs and the fact the previous time limit was clearly an unfair term (CRA 2015 comes in again!) and she can put the Claimant to strict proof of why the time limit was changed and what the instructions were from the landowner/what date did they ask for the change and why was it done.

The C will be unlikely to address all this so she can seize the high ground and show evidence of the changes, and suggest the changes were due to complaints BEFORE her parking event...or however it is best spun, in your case.

I'm assuming they have submitted that LoA as evidence of authority to operate at the car park. I still think it's worth adding to WS being that it was signed after parking offence?

Yes I agree - it ties in with the above thing about the changed signs too, especially if the LoA doesn't clarify which time limit they are agreeing the PPC can enforce...the new one or the old one, and from what date...

beamerguy

kernowkid007 wrote: »

Ok CM, so I’m assuming they have submitted that LoA as evidence of authority to operate at the car park. I still think it’s worth adding to WS being that it was signed after parking offence?

I agree with your 4th paragraph.

I have read CEC16’s thread and many others regarding ‘abuse of process’, I think in my wife’s case it’ll be her best chance of victory.

Her only other arguments in the case are the signage- changed at some point from 2 months before and 4 months after the offence. Her time in car park is within free parking time as per new signage

Your job is put doubt in the judge's mind about the signs.

With regards to abuse of process, you can highlight this and ask the judge on what authority do Britannia/BWLegal have to add a further £60 which is against POFA2012

This question which has been asked already results in a non reply, in other words they have no authority.
If you get a smart !!! "rent by the hour" legal who refers to the Code of Practice (CoP) you can knock him off his perch with this:-

READ HOW THE BPA AND IPC entice their members to break the
law
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6083229

kernowkid007

Just received IP address ban trying to copy and paste from notepad, any ideas?

kernowkid007

I can still post from my phone and I was hoping to post draft of WS tonight. Does anyone know of a way to do this via a phone?

Coupon-mad

Not unless you host the document you've written in Dropbox and post a link.

There is a WS I just replied about, that deals with signs changing the time limit that was previously not fit for purpose, you might want to find it & read it.