Claim Form received from BW Legal (Britannia)

s7huj

thanks nosferatu1001.

Since I still have no response from BW Legal or Britannia Parking for my requests for information I want to get and submit defence before I run out of time / something happens and I forget.

I have re-written my defence (slightly) and it is pasted below, point 4 (in bold) is what I have added - is it ok?
___________________________________________________
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. Contrary to the Data Protection Act 2018 and General Data Protection Regulation the claimant (Britannia Parking) and their solictors (BW Legal) have refused to release any information relating to the alleged incident.

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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

___________________________________________________


Thanks again everyone for your help in the matter, you are most kind.

nosferatu1001

THis might be of use to you, if Britannia keep mucking you about:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/02/08/housing_biz_to_fork_out_1500_for_failing_to_hand_over_data_when_asked/

Coupon-mad

I doubt the total claim is only £154 (the total is on the right/bottom in the box). So in #2 just stop at 'the sum claimed, or any sum at all'.

and I don't think this is the exact name of the Claimant, so check that on the claim form:

Britannia Carpark Limited (Claimant)

Double check for typos that don't show up in a spellcheck, e.g. you have:

Cap park,

Why is this not in your defence? If it is, I missed it:

I've no memory of receiving a ticket on my car and certainly have never parked my car in 'Southampton - West Quay Retail Park'. (Looking back in my diary I flew to Peru that day so I'm not even sure it's possible for my car to have been in Southampton)

And I would add to this part. We need to use the recent £1250 award, re costs:

4. Contrary to the Data Protection Act 2018 and General Data Protection Regulation the Claimant [STRIKE](Britannia Parking)[/STRIKE] and their [STRIKE]solictors (BW Legal)[/STRIKE] solicitors have refused to release any information relating to the alleged incident. The Defendant submitted to the Claimant a subject access request (SAR) which resulted in a response illegally demanding £10 for the data (no longer allowed for a SAR, under the GDPR).
This has been reported to the Information Commissioner

4.1. A refusal to supply any data, evidence or information about the contract or the alleged breach in the pre-court phase also rides roughshod over the 2017 pre-action protocol for debt claims (the PAP), a mandatory protocol with which the Claimant and their robo-claim solicitors are more than familiar. By abandoning the requirements of the PAP and the Practice Direction and refusing to supply data without payment the Claimant is seeking to deny me access to the most basic documents and information.

4.2. The Defendant suggests that, when it comes to the matter of costs, the Claimant's wholly unreasonable conduct must be considered, with indemnity costs in the Defendant's favour. The Claimant will be aware that the court has the power to award costs against even a successful Claimant.

4.3. This notoriously litigious parking firm are using a solicitor which files tens of thousands of parking claims per annum and thus the claimant has no excuse for ignoring the relevant protocols and DPA law and cannot be granted relief from costs sanctions.

4.4. On 24th January this year, in a similarly unevidenced/lacking in particulars parking firm claim (PCM v Mr A, claim number E7GF9C9V) at Edmonton Court, DDJ Genn dismissed the claim and awarded the Defendant costs on the indemnity basis in the sum of £1250, with the Judge stating in an Order that will be produced in evidence:'Claimant is to pay Defendant's costs (assessed in the sum of £1250) pursuant to CPR P5 27.14 because of its unreasonable conduct in not responding to Defendant [...] and non compliance with the pre-action protocol for debt claims'.

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Why is this not in your defence? If it is, I missed it:

I've no memory of receiving a ticket on my car and certainly have never parked my car in 'Southampton - West Quay Retail Park'. (Looking back in my diary I flew to Peru that day so I'm not even sure it's possible for my car to have been in Southampton)

OP later posted # 9 that he had discovered his wife drove to the shops that day but it isn't made clear if shops are at the Retail Park.

Coupon-mad

OK but the D should still be stating they were not the driver and was flying to Peru that day. It then leads to POFA arguments (including inadequate signs, and no 'relevant obligation/contract' as well as the NTK, if non-POFA) and will stop the Judge being able to find as fact that the D was driving.

s7huj

Thank you for your kind responses.

Just to confirm my situation, as mentioned in my defence, I wasn't the driver but I know who was - they parked my vehicle in the car park and were shopping at the retail park and purchased goods from a shop there.

Anyway, back to my defence ....

I haven't included the 'illegally demanding £10 for the data (no longer allowed for a SAR, under the GDPR).' because they haven't demanded £10 from me, they just have refused to release further information for a variety of reasons. (Britannia Parking claim the issue is now our of their hands and they can't do anything / release any information to me). I still don't know what the claim is for.

I have amended my defence and pasted below, changes are in bold.

______________________________________________________________________

CLAIM No: XXXXXXXXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

Britannia Parking (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. XXXXXXXXXXXX the Defendant, was not the driver of the vehicle on 17th October 2017.

2. 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’.

3. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed or any sum at all.

4. 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 at West Quay Retail Park car park, and was parked within the permitted 'free' time frame.

5. Contrary to the Data Protection Act 2018 and General Data Protection Regulation the Claimant and their solicitors have refused to release any information relating to the alleged incident. The Defendant submitted to the Claimant a subject access request (SAR) to both the Claimant and their solicitors which resulted in a response refusing to release the information.

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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

______________________________________________________________________


Thanks again all for your help, I am getting a bit nervous as I must submit very soon! - I've left it until now as I was hoping to get information back from Britannia or BW Legal.

Coupon-mad

I haven't included the 'illegally demanding £10 for the data (no longer allowed for a SAR, under the GDPR).' because they haven't demanded £10 from me, they just have refused to release further information for a variety of reasons. (Britannia Parking claim the issue is now our of their hands and they can't do anything / release any information to me). I still don't know what the claim is for.

You should include it, because effectively they HAVE said that!

Their standard reply is misleading and makes it look as though you MUST pay £10 to get 'further data' and that is untrue, and illegal.

We've seen that auto-reply and it is misleading and designed to withhold data/or get people paying a tenner (and I bet Britannia do not refund people who pay £10).

(Britannia Parking claim the issue is now our of their hands and they can't do anything / release any information to me).

It is also contrary to the pre-action protocol for debt claims. they MUST suppply inforamtion about the claim, and they MUST supply all data held, under the GDPR.

Get the defence in (include the words I gave you) and then report them to the ICO and show the ICO the response Britannia sent you, and state what data they have withheld (but NOT mentioning 'a copy of the sign' or 'landowner authority' as neither of these are personal data).

s7huj

So I've finally received an allocation to the small claims track, date towards the end of July.

The letter mentions I must send a copy of all documents / my witness statement to the claimant, I have already done this previously (to which BW Legal have replied saying my defence fails to address the contravention and is merely a copied and pasted internet defence). Do I need to send it again?

Not sure what steps I need to take at this stage ... Would it help if I posted a copy of the small claims track letter and / or the letter from BW Legal?

Le_Kirk

You don't need to send your defence again, however your letter should say you must provide your witness statement and evidence to the court and the claimant and by which date.

s7huj

Thanks Le_Kirk, I've just found the *WITNESS STATEMENT EXAMPLES - AN EASY STAGE - YOUR 'STORY' AND EVIDENCE* section in the newbies thread. I'll prepare my Witness Statement and post here once complete.