Claim Form received from BW Legal (Britannia)

s7huj

Thank your for your kind replies, I did search the forums and found some similar cases.

I can't do much in terms of forming a defence until I actually know what the contravention was though? - what happens if they don;t reply to the SAR? I've sent it to both BW Legal and Britannia Parking Ltd.

POC pasted below;

Defendant
Particulars of Claim
The Claimant's Claim is for the sum of €85.00 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant in resoect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 0711012017 (lssue Date) at 09:32:50 at Southampton - West Quay Retail Park
The PCN relates to xxxxxxxxxxxxx. The terms of the PCN allowed the Defendant 28 days from the lssue Date to pay the PCN, but the Defendant failed to do so. Despite demand having been 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 0711012017 to 09/01/2019 being an amount of t9.20. The Claimant also claims t60.00 contractual costs pursuant to PCN Terms and Conditions.


Amount claimed 154.20
Court fee 25.00
Legal representative's costs
50.00
Total amount 229.20



COUPON-MAD - I will read up on the significance of POFA.

Thanks again,

s7huj

CLAIM No: XXXXXXXXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

Britannia Carpark Limited (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed totalling £154.20

2. Vehicle of registration XXXXXXXXXXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to Britannia Parking Ltd at West Quay Retail Park Cap park, and was parked within the permitted 'free' time frame.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant; was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle; XXXXXXXXXXXXX. 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.

?4. The particulars of the claim, state the legal basis is brought against the Defendant for ‘breach of terms of parking’. 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.

?The breach referred to by the Claimant relies upon their own data being wrong from the outset as the ANPR data of VRN’s and Ticket Machine Log data captured are not validated with each other automatically or manually concludes that either the system or business model or both are unfit for purpose or a hidden strategy to ensure maximum profit. The DPA states that personal data is 'inaccurate' if it is incorrect or misleading as to any matter of fact

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.

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. The signage is in a faded state and displayed in a colour scheme not recommended, without any illumination; with additional signage posted over 7ft high - 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 of full compliance that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land under the correct address, 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. XXXXXXXXXXXXX is the registered keeper of the vehicle. ‘Keeper liability’ under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) is dependent upon full compliance with that Act. It is submitted that the Claimant’s Parking Charge Notice and/or Notice to Keeper failed to comply with the statutory wording and/or deadlines set by the POFA. Any non-compliance voids any right to ‘keeper liability’.

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




So this is the defence I've put together ... I'm not sure I need 4, as the POC doesn't state explicitly that I've breached the terms of parking?

I'm also unsure about point 9 since I didn't receive a PCN or NTK.

Thanks again for those who have taken time to help - I'm doing my best to read everything you point me towards and help myself - but forgive me if I've copied in bits to my defence that I don't need. (I've stripped out personal details and XXX'd them)

Coupon-mad

over 7ft high

Personally I would say 'some 8ft high'...

And I think your defence looks very good and says it all at this stage!

Le_Kirk

I think you would normally put your point 9 near the top.

Coupon-mad

Agreed, it's an important fact of law and denial of liability.

s7huj

Thanks for all your replies, I have changed the defence slightly (moved what was the last point up to the first.

================================================================================
CLAIM No: XXXXXXXXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

Britannia Carpark Limited (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. XXXXXXXXXXXXX is the registered keeper of the vehicle. ‘Keeper liability’ under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) is dependent upon full compliance with that Act. It is submitted that the Claimant’s Parking Charge Notice and/or Notice to Keeper failed to comply with the statutory wording and/or deadlines set by the POFA. Any non-compliance voids any right to ‘keeper liability’.

2. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed totalling £154.20

3. Vehicle of registration XXXXXXXXXXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to Britannia Parking Ltd at West Quay Retail Park Cap park, and was parked within the permitted 'free' time frame.

4. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant; was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle; XXXXXXXXXXXXX. 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.

5. The particulars of the claim, state the legal basis is brought against the Defendant for ‘breach of terms of parking’. 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.

The breach referred to by the Claimant relies upon their own data being wrong from the outset as the ANPR data of VRN’s and Ticket Machine Log data captured are not validated with each other automatically or manually concludes that either the system or business model or both are unfit for purpose or a hidden strategy to ensure maximum profit. The DPA states that personal data is 'inaccurate' if it is incorrect or misleading as to any matter of fact

6. 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.

7. 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. The signage is in a faded state and displayed in a colour scheme not recommended, without any illumination; with additional signage posted over 8ft high - It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

8. The Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land under the correct address, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

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 £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.

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
================================================================================


Now my defence above has been written BEFORE I've received any information from the SAR I submitted to Britannia Parking Ltd and BW Legal.

Should I wait for any information back from the SAR, or should I print and submit this to the court? (I am correct in understanding it's better to print, than to submit online, so formatting is preserved making it easier for the judge to read?)


Many thanks all for your kind help.

KeithP

s7huj wrote: »

...should I print and submit this to the court? (I am correct in understanding it's better to print, than to submit online, so formatting is preserved making it easier for the judge to read?)

I hoped that the detail provided in post #10 above might have given you a good idea on how to tackle that.

Coupon-mad

I'd wait for the data, as long as you don't miss your deadline to email the defence.

s7huj

So, I've heard back from Britannia Parking - they have refused to release any information as "BW Legal are now managing the case".

BW Legal have not released any information to me either even after I filled in a form on their website *confirming my identity"

So at this stage I still do not know what the infringement was. So the defence I posted earlier still ok to use?

To be specific;

1. XXXXXXXXXXXXX is the registered keeper of the vehicle. ‘Keeper liability’ under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) is dependent upon full compliance with that Act. It is submitted that the Claimant’s Parking Charge Notice and/or Notice to Keeper failed to comply with the statutory wording and/or deadlines set by the POFA. Any non-compliance voids any right to ‘keeper liability’.

Is the point above valid considering I don't have the PCN to prove that it doesn't comply with POFA?

Thanks for your continued and kind help.

nosferatu1001

Report them to the ICO
They MUST release data
THey are the data controller and have a legal obligation to do so

Remind Brit of this
Give them 3 days to provide the data
STate that, should they again refuse, you will be forced to submit a counterclaim to the court, seking damages for their breach ofther DPA2018.

Yes, you include it
Make them prove otherwise
You also add in a single line stating that, contrary to the DPA2018 AND the overriding objectives of the court, both the claimant and their solicitors have refused to release ANY info about the alleged incident.