Forum Home » Motoring » Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking

Brittania PCN and BW Legal - Page 2

New Post Advanced Search

Coronavirus: The latest from MSE


The MSE team is working extremely hard to keep the info we have about your travel rights, cancellation rights, sick pay (and more) up to date.
The official MSE guides: UPDATED MSE Coronavirus Guides

NEWSFLASH


New, free ‘Academoney’ course from MSE and the Open University launches
All the key areas of personal finance are covered, so that you can master your money decisions


Brittania PCN and BW Legal

60 replies 2.1K views
2456

Replies

  • Thanks every one for helping me so far. I have received a lovely Claim form from County Court. Summary of my case is below:


    - Britannia/BW are chasing me for a PCN from 2016
    - I sent SAR request and they asked me to verify my address which I did. They now say that 1 month will start from the time i confirmed my address details. 1 month from date will be expiring in few days
    - They have refused to provide even simple details such as pictures etc
    - BW Legal refused to put the case on hold until SAR is processed


    I am now going to go through the posts on how to acknowledge it and then prepare my defense. As Ia m going on holidays from 14th so I want to prepare my defense before I go.


    If there are any suggestions or particular posts I should be looking at then please let me know.



    The claimant's claim is for the sum of £85 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on xx/xx/2016 at XXXXX


    The PCN relates to XXXX under registration XXXX. The terms of the PCN allowed the Defendant 28 days from the issue Date to pay the PCN, but the defendant failed to do so. Despite demand having being made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.


    The claim also includes Statutory Interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum a daily rate of 0.02 from xxx/xx/2016 to 29/01/2019 being an amount of £xx.xx


    The claimant also claims £60.00 contractual costs pursuant to PCN terms and conditions


    Amount Claimed: I am not providing exact amount so they can't work out the date PCN was issued. It includes £85+Interest+£60 bw legal cost

    Court Fees: £25
    Legal Representative cost: £50
    Total amount: £xxx
  • KeithPKeithP Forumite
    21.3K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

    Did it come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton. or from somewhere else?
  • beamerguybeamerguy Forumite
    14.8K posts
    Tenth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    They have refused to provide even simple details such as pictures etc
    - BW Legal refused to put the case on hold until SAR is processed


    So BWLegal and Britannia are restricting you in making a valid defence and on that basis you ask the court to strike out the claim.

    As coupon-mad has said, a complaint to the ICO about Britannia
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS
    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
  • @Keith P - Issue Date is 30 Jan 2019 and it comes from County Court Business Centre in Northampton
  • KeithPKeithP Forumite
    21.3K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    pcnhater wrote: »
    Issue Date is 30 Jan 2019 and it comes from County Court Business Centre in Northampton.
    With a Claim Issue Date of 30th January, you have until Monday 18th February to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox link from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

    Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 4th 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 [email protected]
    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.
  • Coupon-madCoupon-mad Forumite
    84.8K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    any suggestions or particular posts I should be looking at then please let me know.

    You will find them yourself when you search the forum (ADVANCED SEARCH, AND CHANGE TO 'SHOW RESULTS AS POSTS') for keywords:

    Britannia defence BW Legal
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • Thanks. Acknowledgement of Service is done.


    I have gone through some of the posts discussing defense. I can take some of the points but one thing I am not too sure about is how I dispute Contravention. The only contravention description I have is "Parked in a non-parking restricted area or access way". I have no pictures of my car parked, signage etc. What should I put in my defense related to this?
  • My defense is below and I will appreciate any comments. As mentioned in my earlier messages, I am not sure what should be the basis of my defense when claimant has not provided details under Data Protection and car park no longer exist so i can;t take pictures of my own either. Also, the car was not parked in the designated bay but instead partially on the pavement and road. Parking ticket was bought and displayed on windscreen. However, it was not blocking any car or pedestrian. It was a small car park and what i can remember is there was only one sign with tiny font.





    IN THE COUNTY COURT
    CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx
    BETWEEN:
    Britannia Parking Ltd (Claimant)
    -and-
    xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)
    ________________________________________
    DEFENCE
    ________________________________________
    1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

    2. The Particulars of Claim state only that the PCN relates to ‘car make’ under registration XXXXXX and the claimant has failed to identify the driver. The Claimant is put to strict proof in identifying the driver.

    3. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date at [location]. There is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.

    4. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")

    5. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
    5.1. there was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
    5.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
    It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

    6. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

    7. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. Defendant requested photographic evidence of the car this claim is related to and close up of the signs on the day in question, taken at the time with supporting evidence that they were in force, legible, accessible and installed to cover the period in question. However, claimant refused to provide such details and their response stated that they will present in the court.


    12. 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.

    13. The Protection of Freedoms Act 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. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

    14. There also appears to be an attempt to hide this additional £60 charge from the court as a ‘Contractual Cost’ that has been referred as varying additional charges throughout the Claimants and their Solicitors correspondences, most recently hidden as a £110 ‘Solicitor Costs’ fee on BW Legal letter dated xx/xx/xx, which is a sum in excess and specifically prohibited from being claimed in small claims court.

    15. It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add an extra sums and that those sums formed part of the permit/parking contract formed with the resident in the first instance.

    16. Section B.1.1 of the IPC Code of Practice outlines to operators:
    1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the “Creditor” within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner's behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.
    a. The Claimant is put to strict proof they have such authority to operate on site and to take action in their own name. The same is a requirement of any contract based on conduct.
    b. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
    c. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
    d. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge

    17. If in the alternative it is the claimant's case that his claim is founded in trespass (which is in any event denied) then in a residential car park setting any damages in trespass can only be assessed based on a calculation of the proportion of income lost based on the time of the alleged occupation. Any sum sought could therefore only be minimal and de-minimis
    Only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis vs ParkingEye (2015) UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves.

    18. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of the vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of visitors vehicle within any visitor parking space. The Defendant avers that with Primacy of Contract, there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation to ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court.

    19. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

    20. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

    Name
    Signature
    Date
  • Coupon-madCoupon-mad Forumite
    84.8K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    That's very long and it wrongly cites the IPC CoP. Britannia are in the BPA.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • I have prepared a new Defense which i have posted below. however, I have following questions and will really appreciate if someone can clarify/guide me on those.


    1) As car was parked partially on the footpath and partially on the road. SO the defense i have taken is that it is not clear what they mean by 'correctly parked'. however, as they have not provided pictures so not sure if it is correct


    2) They refused to provide any photographic evidence of signs with T&C so do i need to mention it?





    IN THE COUNTY COURT

    CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

    BETWEEN:

    BRITANNIA PARKING LTD (Claimant)

    -and-

    xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

    ________________________________________
    DEFENCE
    ________________________________________

    1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

    2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a place where it was not obstructing other cars or pedestrians, and had a valid parking ticket to be parked.

    3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant !!!8220;was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)!!!8221;. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 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.

    4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

    5. 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. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked'.

    6. 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.

    7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary 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.

    8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 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 £85. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

    9. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

    Name
    Signature
    Date
Sign In or Register to comment.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support