Britannia/BWL - Court Claim - Driver Question

Martmonk_2

Thanks CM.
Missed those references to other PPC as I think I misread PPS as PPC(!)

I'll make those adjustments when I get the chance and repost.

It's a pub car park, and no, the driver didn't notice it had changed to P&D, but also couldn't say for sure how long it had been changed (infrequent visitor).

martmonk

Hi,
made the changes suggested and have added 6.1 - please could someone check that for me and I'll get this off today or tomorrow.

Thanks
MM.


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.

6.1 Section 18.10 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice (version 7, January 2018) states that ‘Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional/ temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply.’ As this was a previously free to use car park the Claimant is put to strict proof that such steps were taken, and the dates of those steps.

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 BW Legal 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.

Name
Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

Looks good to me.

martmonk

thanks all. Submitted today, acknowledgement auto response received, will login as advised early next week and make sure it's 'defended'.

martmonk

I have a DQ question that I'm hoping you can help with.

D3 = 1 witness (that’s you) (or more if you are going to get another person to provide a statement)

Is taken from the links in newbies thread.

As there is no longer an option for the driver to out themselves and prevent the case against the RK proceeding, is it possible and if so advisable, for the driver to provide a witness statement as well - in this case specifically about signage.

There's one sign in particular that on the day of the parking event was not there but was by the time the first letter arrived and photographs of signage were taken.

It's the only one a driver could have reasonably be expected to see when driving in and parking where they did that day.

Hope that all makes sense.

KeithP

A risk of 'outing' the driver is that should you win your case, the PPC could then pursue the driver if they wished.

Whether they would or not... who knows?

martmonk

KeithP wrote: »

A risk of 'outing' the driver is that should you win your case, the PPC could then pursue the driver if they wished.

Whether they would or not... who knows?

Ok thanks.

Coupon-mad

If the driver is to provide a WS then it could be dismissed as hearsay unless that driver also goes to the hearing with the keeper.

If that is not likely to be possible then the keeper defendant themselves can state what they've seen from the lack of signs, when they went to have a look and take photos (unless the site has changed).

martmonk

Hi,

so we've had the outline of a witness statement ready to submit to the court tomorrow, but today received the BW Legal witness statement.

Contained within it is a letter of authorisation from the landowner (heavily redacted) but the date of it, and of the signature is 2 months AFTER the parking event.

Can someone help me write a killer paragraph addressing that for the WS (I assume expanding on 7. in the skeleton defense above)?

Would this do it (I've changed the dates, but the time between them remains consistent)?

As established and agreed, the material date in question is 17 June 2017. The witness statement provided by the claimant includes reference (para 10) to a signed and redacted letter of authority (pages 1-5 in their bundle). The date of this letter of authority is 02 Sept 2107, over 2 months after the parking event. This means that the Claimant, as a matter of law, has no locus standi to litigate in their own name and accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

Umkomaas

This means that the Claimant, as a matter of law, has no locus standi to [STRIKE]litigate in their own name and accordingly[/STRIKE] , the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

... issue any parking charges whatsoever prior to this date and are doing so in absolute contravention of the British Parking Association's Code of Practice under which they are required to operate.