Britannia/BWL - Court Claim - Driver Question

martmonk

Hi,

been a while since I've been here!

At this point I have 1 question - at what point (if any) is it too late to name the driver?
(I know I should know this, but don't, and can't find in the threads available or with the search function)

Before I get 'don't do it' responses we're getting towards the point where there may not be an alternative.

Mrs MM as RK has received the claim and I've dealt with everything to this point (initial appeal, POPLA, responses to previous letters etc), however as someone who suffers from anxiety it's causing her undue worry and I want to put a stop to that. All previous attempts to calm the worry, including just yesterday using Umkomaas eloquent paragraph from last week on another thread have failed.

"It is more a business type meeting between you, a rep of the PPC (sometimes they don't turn up) and a Judge to discuss the various issues and make a decision if anything is owing to the claimant."

So where I'm at right now is in a position of doubting any persuasion is going to work, therefore hoping to name the driver and help them when and if they start to receive letters and at the same time remove Mrs MM from having any part.

Fruitcake

A lay rep could act on her behalf, but she would still need to be there to answer some questions, so I don't know if that would be of any help.

nosferatu1001

Far far too late to nakme the driver, if they have complied with POFA to hold the keeper liable AND proceedings are started
This is clear AND on the POFA itself.

Should this not go into an existing thread, rather than randomly floating around?

martmonk

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Should this not go into an existing thread, rather than randomly floating around?

Not sure what you mean by that?
maybe that I have an existing thread? I don't.

martmonk

Fruitcake wrote: »

A lay rep could act on her behalf, but she would still need to be there to answer some questions, so I don't know if that would be of any help.

Yes, thanks, I was aware of that, but, despite assurances, the 'fear' (whether we think it rational or not) of court is real for her.

KeithP

This video may help:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93eoaxhzpU

If there is a live court claim, then the Defendant cannot be changed. The named Defendant must defend.

No point in naming the driver at this point.

The_Deep

I do not know why people are frightened of the County Court, it is just an arbitration venue. Can you not get a letter from her GP?

Get your MP involved as it is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business.

Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

martmonk

The_Deep wrote: »

I do not know why people are frightened of the County Court, it is just an arbitration venue. Can you not get a letter from her GP?

Possibly, and it's a good suggestion thanks.

But to answer the question 'why people are frightened of the County Court' there's a multitude of reasons, not least of which are various cognitive ones.

martmonk

OK, so any comments/suggested amends here please?
Issue date was 9th Jan, AOS on 14th.
I'm out of the country from tomorrow to Monday so would like to submit on Tuesday (5th)

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

Britannia Parking Group Limited (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 marked bay at XXXX, a previously a free to park car park.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). 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', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

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 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.

8. In addition to the original PCN penalty, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported 'costs' of £60, which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.

8.1. These have been variously described as ‘Initial Legal costs’ (in the pre-action exchange of letters) and/or ‘Debt Recovery Costs’ (not part of any terms on signage and cannot be added, not least because it was never expended). Suddenly in the Particulars, there is also a second add-on for purported 'legal representative costs of £50' on top of the vague £60, artificially hiking the sum to £245.04. This would be more than double recovery, being vague and disingenuous and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.

8.2. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs. Given the fact that BW Legal boasted in Bagri v BW Legal Ltd of processing 'millions' of claims with an admin team (and only a handful of solicitors), the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste PPS robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities.

8.2.1. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.

9. 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.

10. 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.

Coupon-mad

Not sure this wording is likely to be right about all signs so I would remove it:

They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste [STRIKE]PPS[/STRIKE] Britannia Parking robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities.

PPS is a completely different parking firm!

If the car park was previously free, in your signage section I would add a brief quote from the BPA CoP where it says that if this is a new restriction where none existed before, extra signs are needed to alert people familiar with the car park being unmanaged, previously.

People don't look for signs in what they know is a free car park, is a good point to make later in your WS and at the hearing, and as such, new restrictions with onerous unexpected charges need to comply with Lord Denning's 'Red Hand Rule' (effectively very clear terms, in red, with a 'red hand' pointing to it!).

What sort of car park is this?

Did the driver not notice it was Pay and Display, or is it a residential car park and the driver didn't see a new permit scheme?

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 9th January, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 11th February 2019 to file your Defence.

That's just under two weeks away. Plenty of time, 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 CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
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.