Letter Before Claim (SAR response received)

Jetslick

Awakeatnight wrote: »

No, I had assumed it was too late but I will give it a try. It's really a terrible car park with more potholes than spaces and maybe their ipad thing wasn't working properly that night. Thanks

Nah, it's not too late and this step is even covered in the NEWBIES stickie thread, post 2:

Oh, and it is always a VERY good idea to complain to the Landowner or retailer, and LBC stage is your chance. When faced with a polite but ''angry customer who will never return'' complaint, Landowners/retailers cancel these, very often, at commercial car park sites (less common with residential sites, but they are beatable in court anyway in most cases).

I'm not too sure myself whether it's still possible after an official court claim has actually been claimed. But you're still in the Letter Before [Court] Claim stages so its definitely not too late (as it happened for me). Just make sure you ask to speak to the manager.

I almost didn't bother with this step myself, which I would have regretted (manager even asked why I didn't come to him sooner). So I'm happy to be that guy that nags others to do so if they haven't already, lol.

Awakeatnight

That's great KeithP, thanks. I reckon I've got quite a strong defence and that 'Ipad for your registration' thing can't be 100% reliable and I was a patron of their cinema. Is there any way of guessing what my chances of success are (in percentage terms) assuming I file a defence? Also, if it does go 'all the way' do I have to go to court in Northampton?

Redx

unless you live in or near Northampton, you wont be going to their county court, so NO, very unlikely

this came from the CCBC there (a government office manned by civil servants, it could just as easily have been Belfast like the DWP for example)

google your local county court, as thats where it will be

we dont do "guesses" , court is a lottery

ALWAYS , ALWAYS complain to the landowner and/or retailer, its NEVER too late

even if they cannot get it cancelled, they could give you a WS stating they do not wish this to go to court, which may swing the judge in your favour (as they dont want to lose customers in this way)

post your draft defence below once you have compiled it

Awakeatnight

I've just been landed by another PCN County Court Claim by the same Brittainia Parking via BW Legal for a different car park with the date of the alleged offence about six months later. I've done AOS but wondering if there's a limit on the number of County Court claims the company can simultaneously post against you. Isn't there a limit?

Umkomaas

Isn't there a limit?

Nope.

But if all the circumstances are the same and they are pursuing you on the same basis (overstaying, or no permit, not paid enough) then you can ask the court to amalagamate, but given different locations, it may not work.

KeithP

Of course there is no limit.

Just because you are being sued for one alleged transgression, it does not mean you can carry on doing the same thing without risk.

However, it is an abuse of process to issue a separate claim for each individual incident for what are essentially the same alleged wrongdoing.


It's now two weeks since you told us of your earlier Claim.
Have you done the Acknowledgement of Service for that one?
How is your Defence progressing?

Awakeatnight

Thanks KeithP and Umkomaas. I see, that's fine. It would explain why I was getting so many phone calls and emails at least :D Have filed an AoS for both, the second one Date of Claim being 31/1/19. Defence will be similar to Bargepoles at the moment, but with the added element of having inputted into the ipad in the foyer and it can't have been working (I've sent an email to the venue but I'm going to call them this week). On the other one it's more that I have a receipt for parking in that car park on the day in question covering the full amount. I can't remember but I think I may have paid a little bit late for all day parking but on the same day.

Coupon-mad

You do need to write a covering letter at each stage asking for the claims to be merged and for one hearing, to avoid wasted court resources and potential costs for all concerned, about matters that are similar in facts from the same claimant about the same car.

This is covered in several threads - search the forum for merged hearing or a similar couple of keywords.

Awakeatnight

OK. Here's my possible defence for the Cinema one (the first one I received). Happy to receive input. Should I be putting in witness statements to the defence and how much stronger could they make things in my case...except I suppose the cinema manager saying he would like the case against me dropped...which I hope to obtain in the week.

IN THE COUNTY COURT Claim No:!
BETWEEN:
Britannia Parking Ltd (Claimant) vs XXXXXX (defendant)

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 XXXXXXX on XXXXX

Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.


1. The Defendant believes that he entered his car registration as required in the terms and conditions displayed on the car park signage on the electronic tablet machine in the reception of the venue he was visiting the XXXXXX, as he has done previously on at least five occasions
2. The Claimant has spent almost 6 months harassing the Defendant with 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 £100, let alone £167.68!
3. The Defendant asserts that the claimant's signage does not set out the terms of parking in a sufficiently clear manner, especially for someone trying to read them at night, which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.
4. 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.
5. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £67.68 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.
6. The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. However, with no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant is fully aware that their claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail.!
6.1. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim, where there was no breach, no right to issue a PCN within the time limit due to the lack of information on signage stating this grace period.!
6.1.1 Differences in facts include but are not limited to: The signs/terms were not prominent (grace periods being a 'misleading omission' on the signage, contrary to the CPUTRs); the PCN breached the BPA CoP; the Claimant refused to accept a £10 cheque; the Defendant did not ignore the PCN; this was not a free car park which complicated the decision in Beavis, and the PCN bore no resemblance to the advertised tariff. As such, this case is fully distinguished in all respects from Beavis, where the decision turned on a legitimate interest in charging more as a deterrent, and clear notices proclaiming brief terms and an agreed contractual sum that did not impact on the rights and interests of drivers.

The Defendant avers that the factually-different Beavis decision confirms the assertion that this charge is unconscionable, given the facts of this case. To quote from the Supreme Court:

i) Para 108: ''But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85''.

ii) Para 199: ''What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 [...] is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests. Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so.''

iii) Para 205: ''The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.''

Awakeatnight

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You do need to write a covering letter at each stage asking for the claims to be merged and for one hearing, to avoid wasted court resources and potential costs for all concerned, about matters that are similar in facts from the same claimant about the same car.

This is covered in several threads - search the forum for merged hearing or a similar couple of keywords.

Thanks a lot Coupon-Mad. Will look that up an post back if confused.