Claim Form received from BW Legal (Britannia)

Coupon-mad

Just to clarify to newbies, I don't mean 24 hours before the hearing!

s7huj

Ok below is my first proper draft, (I need to number / sort out referencing for my evidence)

Any input / comments are very welcome...

****************************************************************************************

I, *NAME* of *ADDRESS* am the defendant in this case.

1. I am unrepresented with no exposure to Court proceedings. I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.

2. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my personal knowledge they are true to the best of the information available to me.

3. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement supporting my defence as already filed.

4. I assert that I *INSERT NAME* am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case, but I was not the driver on the 7th October 2017.

5. I will describe the day my vehicle was parked in West Quay Retail Park Southampton car park but firstly I confirm a summary of my defence to the claim;

(A) The Claimant has no legal standing to bring a claim against the defendant.

(B) Claimant does not have authorisation from the landowner to pursue the defendant.

(C) Poor signage within the car park.

(D) Vehicle was parked within the 'free' 30 min parking period


EVENTS OF THE DAY AND FOLLOWING

On the *INSERT DATE* the driver of my vehicle drove into the West Quay Retail Park car park at *INSERT TIME*, spaces immediately near the entrance were already occupied so the driver continued along the access road until an available space was found. Whilst driving through the car park no signs were visible to suggest the car park is subject to charges for its use.

Upon parking the vehicle the driver was unable to see any indication the car park was a pay and display car park, no signs or machines are visible from the parking space. The West Quay Retail Park car park is identical in it's presentation to other local free car parks.

When the driver returned to the vehicle, leaving within the 30 minute free window, there was no indication a parking charge notice had been received.

My first knowledge of the Parking Charge Notice from Britannia Parking Ltd was a letter received from BW Legal on *INSERT DATE*. Initially I dismissed the letter as a scam as I myself have never parked in the West Quay Retail Park and had no knowledge of any parking infringement. Upon receiving further letters I tried to investigate further, but attempts to gain any details of the alleged offence were rejected (by emails with an automated appearance) requesting I confirmed unnecessary amounts of personal information, I refused this information because it still appeared to be a scam trying to glean personal information.

I spent a long period of time in uncertainty as to whether I had received a parking charge notice or was subject of an attempted scam.

Following a SAR placed on *INSERT DATE* I was finally able to ascertain the details of the alleged contravention.


DEFENCE ITEMS IN DETAIL

(A) CLAIMANT HAS NO LEGAL STANDING TO BRING A CLAIM AGAINST THE DEFENDANT

The defendant was not the driver of the vehicle and the claimant has failed to follow the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to hold the defendant liable for the contravention. A Notice To Keeper (NTK) was sent to the defendant, but it failed to meet the strict conditions as defined under the act, meaning the claimant is unable to hold the registered keeper to account for the alleged contravention.

Principally the Notice To Keeper (NTK) failed to;

- Meet the strict timescale set out in POFA 2012 "A notice to keeper must be served not earlier than 28 days after, and not more than 56 days after, the service of that notice to driver." - the NTK was send 82 days (27th December) after the alleged contravention and notice to driver (7th October).

- Notify the keeper that if the parking charges remains outstanding after 28 days and the name and address of the driver has not been given, that the 'creditor' will be entitled to recover the parking charge from the registered keeper.

- Clearly identify the claimant, to date all paperwork received relating to the contravention has been signed 'BW Legal' this does not clearly state who the claimant is. (****EVIDENCE TO BE REFERENCED****)


(B) CLAIMANT DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORISATION FROM THE LANDOWNER TO PURSUE THE DEFENDANT

The claimant is not the landowner and has failed to supply any contract clearly stating they have legal permission to pursue parking contraventions on behalf of the landowner. Without this contract the claimant has no legal basis upon which to claim any sum from the defendant.

Requests for this contract information have been denied because with the defendant stating the claimant is "not entitled to business sensitive information". (****EVIDENCE TO BE REFERENCED****)


(C) POOR SIGNAGE WITHIN CAR PARK

Due to the scarcity, location and presentation of the information signs in the car park, notably in the immediate area my vehicle was parked, it was not possible for the driver to have seen any signs provided by the parking operator and therefore it is denied that the driver of the vehicle entered into any legally binding contract with the Claimant. I strongly suspect this obscure signing configuration is partly intentional to confuse and possibly entrap car park users into receiving a parking charge notices. (****EVIDENCE TO BE REFERENCED****)

I have included a video of the route into the car park which shows no signs are visible to the driver of a vehicle entering, and parking in the car park. (****EVIDENCE TO BE REFERENCED****)

(D) VEHICLE WAS PARKED WITHIN 'FREE' PARKING PERIOD

Vehicle of registration *REG*, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the *INSERT DATE* in a marked bay within the allotted 30 minute free parking time. There are no costs to be recovered since parking for less than 30 minutes is advertised as being 'free'.

Photographic evidence from the claimant clearly shows the car present within the 30 minute time allocation. (****EVIDENCE TO BE REFERENCED****)

***********************************************************************************

Coupon-mad

You don't need to summarise your defence again, as the Judge will have it. Unless you want to write a skeleton argument to help you focus on the day (see NEWBIES thread for the difference).

Remove this bit as it isn't relevant. The PCN/NTK was not signed 'BW Legal' and re the more recent letters, it is perfectly normal for firms of solicitors to have a facsimile signature which is just their firm's name:

- Clearly identify the claimant, to date all paperwork received relating to the contravention has been signed 'BW Legal' this does not clearly state who the claimant is. (****EVIDENCE TO BE REFERENCED****)

Castle

s7huj wrote: »

My first knowledge of the Parking Charge Notice from Britannia Parking Ltd was a letter received from BW Legal on *INSERT DATE*.

Did it really say "Britannia Parking Ltd" or was it "Britannia Parking Group Ltd" as they are two different companies.

s7huj

Did it really say "Britannia Parking Ltd" or was it "Britannia Parking Group Ltd" as they are two different companies.

So my first letter from BW Legal on the 16th Nov '18 state the client as "Britannia Parking Limited"

Letters following this state the client as "Britannia Parking Group Limited t/a Britannia Parking"


@Coupon-mad, but having read other WS they included what I have ... I don't really know what you mean when you state "You don't need to summarise your defence again". sorry

s7huj

P.S. My notice to court allocation, states I have to submit my WS by 7th June 4PM - is this by post, or? (it doesn't say)

Coupon-mad

All of this reads like a repeat defence, not a WS which should just be your story:

DEFENCE ITEMS IN DETAIL

(A) CLAIMANT HAS NO LEGAL STANDING TO BRING A CLAIM AGAINST THE DEFENDANT

The defendant was not the driver of the vehicle and the claimant has failed to follow the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to hold the defendant liable for the contravention. A Notice To Keeper (NTK) was sent to the defendant, but it failed to meet the strict conditions as defined under the act, meaning the claimant is unable to hold the registered keeper to account for the alleged contravention.

Principally the Notice To Keeper (NTK) failed to;

- Meet the strict timescale set out in POFA 2012 "A notice to keeper must be served not earlier than 28 days after, and not more than 56 days after, the service of that notice to driver." - the NTK was send 82 days (27th December) after the alleged contravention and notice to driver (7th October).

- Notify the keeper that if the parking charges remains outstanding after 28 days and the name and address of the driver has not been given, that the 'creditor' will be entitled to recover the parking charge from the registered keeper.

- Clearly identify the claimant, to date all paperwork received relating to the contravention has been signed 'BW Legal' this does not clearly state who the claimant is. (****EVIDENCE TO BE REFERENCED****)


(B) CLAIMANT DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORISATION FROM THE LANDOWNER TO PURSUE THE DEFENDANT

The claimant is not the landowner and has failed to supply any contract clearly stating they have legal permission to pursue parking contraventions on behalf of the landowner. Without this contract the claimant has no legal basis upon which to claim any sum from the defendant.

Requests for this contract information have been denied because with the defendant stating the claimant is "not entitled to business sensitive information". (****EVIDENCE TO BE REFERENCED****)


(C) POOR SIGNAGE WITHIN CAR PARK

Due to the scarcity, location and presentation of the information signs in the car park, notably in the immediate area my vehicle was parked, it was not possible for the driver to have seen any signs provided by the parking operator and therefore it is denied that the driver of the vehicle entered into any legally binding contract with the Claimant. I strongly suspect this obscure signing configuration is partly intentional to confuse and possibly entrap car park users into receiving a parking charge notices. (****EVIDENCE TO BE REFERENCED****)

I have included a video of the route into the car park which shows no signs are visible to the driver of a vehicle entering, and parking in the car park. (****EVIDENCE TO BE REFERENCED****)

(D) VEHICLE WAS PARKED WITHIN 'FREE' PARKING PERIOD

Vehicle of registration *REG*, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the *INSERT DATE* in a marked bay within the allotted 30 minute free parking time. There are no costs to be recovered since parking for less than 30 minutes is advertised as being 'free'.

Photographic evidence from the claimant clearly shows the car present within the 30 minute time allocation.

s7huj

Hmm ok, I have the WS from BW Legal and it is very lengthy .. it lists my defence too and their response to it.


My notice to court allocation, states I have to submit my WS by 7th June 4PM - is this by post, or? (it doesn't say)

I'm pretty much out of the time I had to put into this ...

Umkomaas

My notice to court allocation, states I have to submit my WS by 7th June 4PM - is this by post, or? (it doesn't say)

The NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2, covers this comprehensively.

Coupon-mad

I have the WS from BW Legal and it is very lengthy

How often do you think we see that template WS drivel from BW Legal? About 3 times a day sometimes...!

The WS should be the story of what happened from your point of view, in the first person. Here is some advice from a solicitor poster, Johnersh:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75686250#Comment_75686250

It is easy, most people can honestly do a WS in an hour. It's just your story.

My notice to court allocation, states I have to submit my WS by 7th June 4PM - is this by post, or? (it doesn't say)

Post or in person in a ring binder file to the court so they MUST receive it by then. Email to BW Legal. When does it say your evidence has to be filed & served, at the same time or not?

Usually your WS and evidence goes together and we advise in PERSON, in a file with a contents page and the date of the hearing and claim number clearly marked on the front.




HTH