Brittania PCN and BW Legal

Le_Kirk · 19 July 2019 at 5:12PM

pcnhater wrote: »

Another question, if BW Legal try to establish that I was the drive bypointing out my explanation on where the car was parked and whether it was obstructing or not then am I under any obligation to tell who the driver was?

You were a passenger in the car!

pcnhater · 19 July 2019 at 10:06PM

I have updated myWitness statement and completely changed first 11 points. It is now in the form I am ready to submit unless you spot any mistakes or suggest to alter it. I have to submit it by end of Saturday so will really appreciate if someone can have a quick look and let me know if any changes required.

IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: XXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

BRITANNIA PARKING GROUP LTD (Claimant) -and-

XXXXX XXXXX (Defendant)
________________________________________
WITNESS STATEMENT
________________________________________

I, [NAME] of [ADDRESS] am the defendant in this case.

1. I am unrepresented with no exposure to Court proceedings. I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.

2. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my personal knowledge they are true to the best of the information available to me.

3. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement supporting my defence as already filed.

4. I assert that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case. The Defendant denies being the driver at the time of the supposed event, and therefore puts Claimant to strict proof that any contract can exist between the Claimant and themselves.

5. It is denied that any contract was entered in to between myself and the claimant.

6. It is denied that the Claimant has the authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.

7. At the time in their notice to driver was issued it is possible for a family member to have been the driver, but I have no obligation to name them to a private parking firm. It remains the burden of the Claimant to prove their case.

BACKGROUND

8. Whilst I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned, there is no evidence of the driver. The claimant has issued a notice to keeper which is not compliant with the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as it fails to show any period of parking as per paragraph 8 (2)c PoFA 2012

9. The Defendant neither admits nor denies being the driver at the time of the supposed event, and therefore puts parking company to strict proof that any contract can exist between the Claimant and themselves.

10. At the time in their notice to driver was issued it is possible for a family member to have been the driver, but I have no obligation to name them to a private parking firm. It remains the burden of the Claimant to prove their case.

11. There was no requirement upon me as keeper to respond to what appeared to be junk mail, and in any event was not a matter where a registered keeper could be in any way legally liable as the law stood at that time. No adverse inference can be drawn from my lawful decision to ignore the colourful letter, impersonating a parking ticket yet with no basis in law.

CLAIMANT HAS NO LEGAL STANDING TO BRING A CLAIM AGAINST THE DEFENDANT

12.The claimant is not the landowner and has failed to supply any contract clearly stating they have legal permission to pursue parking contraventions on behalf of the landowner. Requests for this contract information have been denied because with the defendant stating the claimant is "not entitled to business sensitive information". (see email evidence XXX) Without this contract the claimant has no legal basis upon which to claim any sum from the defendant.

SIGNAGE AT THE SITE

13. The Claimant has also failed to provide a map of the car park showing where each sign was displayed. Further, there is no information to show where these signs were within the car park, and many of the images show signs which do not mention a £85 charge.

14. The Claimant has provided 4 pictures of my car taken from all four sides of the car but no parking sign with £85 Parking Charge Notice or showing that parking is not allowed at certain parts of the car park can be seen in the background.

15. The Claimant has provided a picture of the signage allegedly from the Car Park where alleged contravention occurred but this picture is not dated and also this picture is taken on a clear sunny day whereas pictures of the car allegedly showing contravention are taken on a cloudy day. These are inadmissible as evidence as there is no proof that such sign was in place on the date of alleged parking contravention.

16. The Claimant has not provided any proof that picture of the signage belongs to the same Car Park where alleged contravention occurred. In addition to that the location on the Parking Charge Notice is Farnborough whereas the location displayed on the signage in the picture is Farnborough Station

17. The Claimant claims that car was parked in a non-parking restricted area or access way but clearly there is no proof provided showing readable signs were in place clearly showing which area is non-parking restricted area or access way.

ABUSE OF PROCESS

18. In my case, the truth is that no £60 payment has been made to a debt collector because Trace Debt Recovery are known to send letters for parking firms on a 'no collection, no fee' basis. This is an abuse of process in trying to recover a sum vastly above the parking charge, a sum which was not only never paid, but which also falls foul of the CPRs regarding justification and proportionality of standard costs. The Claimant and their solicitors have knowingly misled the Court and the Claimant is put to strict proof or to explain their abuse of process in adding to the claim non-existent 'damages/debt collection' costs.

19. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing, both judges stating:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

COSTS ON THE CLAIM – DISPROPORTIONATE AND DISINGENUOUS

20. CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

21. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact, it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low-cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

22. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

23. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

24. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

25. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

26. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

27. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

28. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Signature

Date

In Terms of Evidence, I am printing following

My Defence
My Witness statement
My Costs schedule
Photos provided by BW Legal
Print email reply to SAR refusing to provide pictures, landowner contract etc
SAR Request email

Coupon-mad · 19 July 2019 at 10:17PM

In Terms of Evidence, I am printing following

[STRIKE]My Defence[/STRIKE]
My Witness statement
My Costs schedule
Photos provided by BW Legal
Print email reply to SAR refusing to provide pictures, landowner contract etc
[STRIKE]SAR Request email[/STRIKE]

Not the 2 things I have crossed out, as neither are evidence and the court already has your defence. You will need a copy for yourself for the hearing in your bundle though. But not to file & serve with your WS.

What about the POFA 2012 with the relevant paras highlighted, if you are saying this was a non-POFA NTK (clue: old ones from 2017 or before by Britannia, used to omit 9(2)f from Schedule 4)?

What about Henry Greenslade's words (search the forum for it, covered a LOT!).

And your WS hasn't actually told the Judge any single fact about the car park, why the car was parked there, what happened, what the driver did and why you think they were authorised or not in contravention.

You need some facts near the start, even as keeper.

pcnhater · 19 July 2019 at 10:26PM

Thanks coupon-mad. I will look into these additional points add to my statement.

Can I also add following point.Will this be useful?

[FONT=&quot]I

would like to put it on record that I take offence at the Claimant's seriously patronising statements in ‘Response to your Defence’ section of letter dated [DATE], calling my Defence as ‘large volume of nonsensical content’ and even 'plagiarism' merely because I sought assistance from the MoneySavingExpert forum whose posters include legally qualified contributors and which has assisted thousands of 'unfair parking charge' victims and which has openly demonstrated a 99% win-rate for Defendants against parking firms since 2017. I am not sure what else the Claimant expected me to do - pay up and shut up, perhaps - rather than use the undoubtedly successful, useful and free resources open to me as a litigant in person. I suggest that it is the Claimant who has a lack of understanding of this location and the relevant CoPs and the high bar required for signage and contract law evidence. Hence this very poorly pleaded case, which has no merit or prospects of success.

[/FONT]

Coupon-mad · 19 July 2019 at 10:35PM

Yes, I would, but I wrote that!

pcnhater · 20 July 2019 at 1:42PM

Here is my updated witness statement. Please have a review and let me know if anything is wrong ormissing. I am not sure how to explain facts about car park, what happened etc. Any help with this ewill be greatly appreciated.

IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: XXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

BRITANNIA PARKING GROUP LTD (Claimant) -and-

XXXXX XXXXX (Defendant)
________________________________________
WITNESS STATEMENT
________________________________________

I, [NAME] of [ADDRESS] am the defendant in this case.

1. I am unrepresented with no exposure to Court proceedings. I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.

2. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my personal knowledge they are true to the best of the information available to me.

3. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement supporting my defence as already filed.

4. I assert that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case. The Defendant denies being the driver at the time of the supposed event, and therefore puts Claimant to strict proof that any contract can exist between the Claimant and themselves.

5. At the time in their notice to driver was issued it is possible for a family member to have been the driver, but I have no obligation to name them to a private parking firm. It remains the burden of the Claimant to prove their case.

6. The claimant has no right to assert that the defendant is liable based on ‘reasonable assumption’. PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, "There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort"(2015).

7. It is denied that any contract was entered in to between myself and the claimant.

8. It is denied that the Claimant has the authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.

BACKGROUND

9. The Defendant neither admits nor denies being the driver at the time of the supposed event, and therefore puts parking company to strict proof that any contract can exist between the Claimant and themselves.

10. Whilst I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned, there is no evidence of the driver. The claimant has issued a notice to keeper which is not compliant with the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as it fails to show any period of parking as per paragraph 8 (2)c PoFA 2012

10.1 The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with.
a) Notwithstanding that the Claimant claims no right to pursue the Defendant as the registered keeper under PoFA, the Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if it cannot identify the driver
b) The keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of £85 charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time and with mandatory wording.

11. There was no requirement upon me as keeper to respond to what appeared to be junk mail, and in any event was not a matter where a registered keeper could be in any way legally liable as the law stood at that time. No adverse inference can be drawn from my lawful decision to ignore the colourful letter, impersonating a parking ticket yet with no basis in law.

CLAIMANT HAS NO LEGAL STANDING TO BRING A CLAIM AGAINST THE DEFENDANT

12.The claimant is not the landowner and has failed to supply any contract clearly stating they have legal permission to pursue parking contraventions on behalf of the landowner. Requests for this contract information have been denied because with the defendant stating the claimant is "not entitled to business sensitive information". (see email evidence XXX) Without this contract the claimant has no legal basis upon which to claim any sum from the defendant.

SIGNAGE AT THE SITE

13. The claimant’s Notice to Keeper indicates the Reason for Issue as ‘Parked in a restricted area in a car park’. No evidence has been provided to the defendant showing a restricted area.

13.1. The signage does not demonstrate a map showing a restricted area of parking nor were there any signs demonstrating that it is a restricted area.

13.2. The Claimant has also failed to provide a map of the car park showing where each sign was displayed. Further, there is no information to show where these signs were within the car park, and all of the images provided as proof (except one) show signs which do not mention a £85 charge.

14. 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.
14.1.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.

15. The Claimant has provided 4 pictures of my car taken from all four sides of the car but no parking sign with £85 Parking Charge Notice or stating that it is a non-parking restricted area.

16. The Claimant has provided a picture of the signage allegedly from the Car Park where alleged contravention occurred but this picture is not dated and also this picture is taken on a clear sunny day whereas pictures of the car allegedly showing contravention are taken on a cloudy day. These are inadmissible as evidence as there is no proof that such sign was in place on the date of alleged parking contravention.

17. The Claimant has not provided any proof that picture of the signage belongs to the same Car Park where alleged contravention occurred. In addition to that the location on the Parking Charge Notice is Farnborough whereas the location displayed on the signage in the picture is Farnborough Station

18. The Claimant claims that car was parked in a non-parking restricted area or access way but clearly there is no proof provided showing readable signs were in place clearly showing which area is non-parking restricted area or access way.

ABUSE OF PROCESS

19. In my case, the truth is that no £60 payment has been made to a debt collector because Trace Debt Recovery are known to send letters for parking firms on a 'no collection, no fee' basis. This is an abuse of process in trying to recover a sum vastly above the parking charge, a sum which was not only never paid, but which also falls foul of the CPRs regarding justification and proportionality of standard costs. The Claimant and their solicitors have knowingly misled the Court and the Claimant is put to strict proof or to explain their abuse of process in adding to the claim non-existent 'damages/debt collection' costs.

20. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing, both judges stating:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

COSTS ON THE CLAIM – DISPROPORTIONATE AND DISINGENUOUS

21. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (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 in this case is £85. The Claimant includes an additional £60 in this claim, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. It is apparent that apart from court fees incurred, any added legal fees/costs are simply made up by the Claimant.
CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

22. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact, it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low-cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

23. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

24. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

25. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

26. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

27. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

28. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

29. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Signature

Date

beamerguy · 20 July 2019 at 3:06PM

19. In my case, the truth is that no £60 payment has been made to a debt collector because Trace Debt Recovery are known to send letters for parking firms on a 'no collection, no fee' basis.

I don't think Trace offer a "no win, no fee""

Only the idiots at DRP do that.

Your statement must be correct

Coupon-mad · 21 July 2019 at 6:55PM

A lot of that reads more like a defence.

Maybe you need to split the documents into the WS (story of what you know, the facts, plus your pics of signage etc) and a separate 'skeleton argument' of bullet points with all the legal arguments and case law, as explained in the NEWBIES thread post #2.

Also, I saw no mention of any evidence, exhibit numbers, like you see in other WS, and the evidence is vital and needs referring to by number. For example, here you would be saying after it [ref Exhibit No x] and appending a copy of the POPLA Annual Report 2015 pages where he talks about Understanding Keeper Liability:

6. The claimant has no right to assert that the defendant is liable based on ‘reasonable assumption’. PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, "There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort"(2015).

pcnhater · 21 July 2019 at 8:35PM

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

We enclose by way of service our client's witness statement which will be relied upon at the forthcoming small claims hearing. Notice is hereby given pursuant to CPR 27.9 that our client will not be in attendance at the hearing, however, they will be represented by an advocate.

Based on the court hearing experiences I have read on this forum, I never thought even for a second that those representing are Advocates. I am sure Advocates cringe as they are black spot on the reputation of their profession.

Coupon-mad · 21 July 2019 at 9:22PM

They are sometimes solicitors, or barristers or a solicitor's agent, and 90% of the time have no Right of Audience.

This can be challenged as your preliminary shot in court if you are confident and OK to drop it & move on to the defence points unbruised, if the Judge is not with you on the rep's lack of RoA.

Search the forum (as ever) if you want to know more.

Brittania PCN and BW Legal

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free