BW Legal threatening me over 2.5 year old private parking tickets

ELR

In May 2016 I received two parking tickets from Britannia Parking. The receptionist in the building owning the car park told the driver not to pay, as it wasn't a legitimate ticket. Two and a half years later, two letters have suddenly arrived at my mums address for £130 each in order to not be taken to court. I was wondering if anyone has any advice or knows my rights in this situation?

I have read bad things about both Britannia Parking and BW Legal, and so am begrudged to had over money if it is a scam company. Many thanks!

ELR

Hi again, since my last post, the claim has be elevated to court. I have received a court claim, and sent off my AoS, but I am now in the middle of preparing my defence. I have written one based on the defences template in the newbies thread, and some parts of other threads that I felt applied to my case too. The summary of my situation is as follows:
-A windscreen ticket was issued for each of the two tickets, however no NTK was ever received
-I have submitted a SAR to Britannia and BW Legal, as well as an email to the DVLA to see who has accessed my data
-The SAR to BW Legal was returned (all they had was our email correspondences, and two addresses - the one at the time of the alleged contravention and the one I have moved to since). BW Legal failed to respond to the part of the email where I stated that their client failed to comply with PoFA by not sending a NTK.
-The SAR to Britannia is still awaiting a reply. I have had to write my defence without knowing what evidence they intend to us, and whether they are going to try and claim they sent a NTK.
-The request to the DVLA is still pending also, but I have had to write my defence without knowing when Britannia accessed my details
-The issue date on the claim form is 26th Feb 2019, am I right in thinking I have until the 26th of March (28 days later) to send off my defence?

I'll post my defence in a new comment to keep things separate and neat

ELR

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXXXX

BRITANNIA PARKING LTD (Claimant)

-and-

XXXX XXXX (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________


1. The Defendant (Miss XXXX XXXX, DOB XX.XX.XXXX, residing at XXXXXXXX) is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question (XXXX XXXX). The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at XXXXXXX car park on 03.05.2016. The Defendant denies that The Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The signage in the car park is of a ‘forbidding’ nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship.
2.1. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s69) applies and the interpretation that most favours a consumer must prevail; that being that the driver(s) did not see or accept the sum the claimant says they did.
3. Signs are located at a distance, unlit, and placed so high creating an illegible condition to read the terms and conditions required to enter a contract. Upon further inspection of the cark park, signage stating terms and conditions were not visible, obvious or readable from any location when inside a vehicle.
3.1 The terms on The Claimant's signage are displayed in an area which cannot be read from a passing vehicle and is in such a position posted over Xft high. That anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily.
3.2 It is denied that The Claimant's sign sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear or visible manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them It is, therefore, denied that The Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
3.3 The Defendant requests evidence of where the car was parked and from photos taken how the signage appeared on the material date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. The Defendant requires how the signage appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. The Defendant submits that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.
4. This case can be distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. As far as it can be ascertained, based upon the vague particulars of claim, it seems reasonable to assume the driver of the vehicle did not see the signage as signage displayed in an area which cannot be read from a passing vehicle and is in such a position posted over Xft high. The defendant believes this distinguishes this case from Parking Eye vs Beavis [2015] none of this applies in this material case
5. The Claimant has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4 in the following ways:
5.1. No Notice to Keeper was delivered.
5.2. The maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case the amount unknown as the Notice to Keeper was never served/delivered. The claim includes an additional £60, for estimated legal costs, which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. This is because The Claimant later adds more legal costs to the claim.
6. In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, The Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported additional costs. The added costs are an artificially invented figure, which represents an attempt to circumvent the small claims costs rules.
7. The Defendant has no knowledge of the Claimant's legal right to control parking on the site and pursue claims relating to its use. The Claimant is put to proof to prove that it has such rights
8. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.
9. Please let it be noted that The Defendant has not received the Subject Access Request (SAR) back at the time of forming this defence. As the full particulars are not known at this time, the defence may need to be amended.
The Defendant believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.


Name
Signature
Date

JCS1

I've emailed a board guide for you, asking for this to be moved to the parking board.