Claim Form received from BW Legal (Britannia)

Le_Kirk

Confused.com here! Is West Quay Car Park different to West Quay Retail Park Car Park? If I was confused reading the WS, maybe the judge will be.

s7huj

Thanks again all for your continued kind help.

@ Le_Kirk, I have been through my WS and made sure I have the correct name of the car park throughout. Thanks for pointing that error out.

I've numbered all of my evidence and while reviewing everything I noticed the photos supplied by the claimant are all from another car park - so I have noted this in my statement and included a map showing where their photos are from (not where I parked!). I'll paste my WS below, but feel really sick again, not sure I can be re-doing / doing any more of it... I'm at my wits end

Sorry for being so weak :embarasse :embarasse .. just got so much on at the moment it's overwhelming.

*************************************************************************************}

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

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. BACKGROUND

5.a) On the 7th October 2017 a person other than myself drove my vehicle into the West Quay Retail Park Car Park and parked at 0905. Upon entering the West Quay Retail Park Car Park the driver is presented with a blue parking sign (see photo evidence 'PJM1'), no mention is made of charges for use of the car park. 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 West Quay Retail Park Car Park no signs were visible to suggest the car park was subject to charge for its use. (see map evidence 'PJM2' for route taken through car park). Driver entered West Quay Retail Park Car Park with the belief parking was not subject to charge.

5.b) Upon parking the vehicle the driver was unable to see any indication the West Quay Retail Park Car Park was a pay and display car park, no signs or machines are visible from the parking space. West Quay Retail Park Car Park is identical in it's presentation to other local free car parks. Driver parked with the belief parking was not subject to charge.

5.c) 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. Driver left the West Quay Retail Park Car Park unaware of any alleged parking contravention.

5.d) My first knowledge of the alleged contravention was a letter of claim received from BW Legal on 16th November 2018, the letter of claim stated the client as 'Britannia Parking Ltd'. (see letter evidence PJM3)

I dismissed the letter of claim as a scam, because;

- 'Britannia Parking Ltd' is a dormant company not conducting business, it has no standing to bring about a claim. (see companies house record evidence 'PJM4')
- I have never parked my vehicle in West Quay Retail Park Car Park.

5.e) Upon receiving further letters from BW Legal I tried to investigate further, but attempts to gain any details of the alleged offence were rejected (see email evidence PJM5) requesting I confirmed unnecessary amounts of personal information. I refused to provide personal information still believing I was a victim of a scam. 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.

5.f) Following a SAR placed on 14th January 2019 I was eventually furnished with the details of the alleged contravention, I then proceeded to document my defence.


6. SITE DETAILS

6.a) The West Quay Retail Park Car Park is a series of large parking areas surrounding a shopping precinct, there are multiple entrances coming off a busy road where extra care has to be taken as the area is bustling with pedestrians.


7. SIGNAGE AT THE SITE

7.a)Due to the scarcity, location and presentation of the information signs in the West Quay Retail Park 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 have taken photos of the area my car was parked. (see photo evidence PJM6 and PJM7)

7.b)The claimant has submitted photographs (see evidence BW1-8) claiming adequete signange is in place, the photos supplied are 240 metres from where my vehicle was parked and so were not visible on the day of the alleged contravention. (see map evidence PJM8)

7.c)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 West Quay Retail Park Car Park. (see video evidence PJM9)


8. CLAIMANT HAS NO LEGAL STANDING TO BRING A CLAIM AGAINST THE DEFENDANT

8.a)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. Requests for this contract information have been denied because with the defendant stating the claimant is "not entitled to business sensitive information". (see email evidence PJM10) Without this contract the claimant has no legal basis upon which to claim any sum from the defendant.

8.b)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.

9. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.


I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true

SIGNED
DATE

Le_Kirk

You state that the driver was unable to see any signs (apart from the one as he/she drove in) but then you go on to say that the driver returned to the vehicle within the 30 minute free period. How does the driver know this if he/she didn't see the signs?

You then say "I have never parked my car in West ..... Car Park". Are you saying that YOU as keeper have never parked it there OR the car has never been parked there?

s7huj

You state that the driver was unable to see any signs (apart from the one as he/she drove in) but then you go on to say that the driver returned to the vehicle within the 30 minute free period. How does the driver know this if he/she didn't see the signs?

Yep, driver left within 30 minute window ... photos from claimant show this too. I learnt about the 30 mins free parking afterwards when researching the car park.

You then say "I have never parked my car in West ..... Car Park". Are you saying that YOU as keeper have never parked it there OR the car has never been parked there?

I wasn't the driver, and so have never parked in the car park. That's a truthful statement.

s7huj

I have changed 5.c) to


5.c) When the driver returned to the vehicle at 0935 there was no indication a parking charge notice had been received. Driver left the West Quay Retail Park Car Park unaware of any alleged parking contravention.

s7huj

One thing I could use some help with (and I have tried to read the NEWBIES section for this). Is how should I submit my costs schedule?

I have read this https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/72079752#Comment_72079752

But not sure where I need to include the costs schedule, so I just take this along to the hearing? or do I need to submit with my WS?

Many thanks kind people.

KeithP

s7huj wrote: »

One thing I could use some help with (and I have tried to read the NEWBIES section for this). Is how should I submit my costs schedule?

I have read this https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/72079752#Comment_72079752

But not sure where I need to include the costs schedule, so I just take this along to the hearing? or do I need to submit with my WS?

Many thanks kind people.

Your costs schedule should be filed with the court and served on the claimant three days before the hearing.

Le_Kirk

s7huj wrote: »

Yep, driver left within 30 minute window ... photos from claimant show this too. I learnt about the 30 mins free parking afterwards when researching the car park.

OK, then maybe you should say that in your WS just to make it clear to the judge.

s7huj wrote: »

I wasn't the driver, and so have never parked in the car park. That's a truthful statement.

Just not sure what point you are trying to make, you have not physically driven the car and parked there but someone did. It reads to me as if you are saying "the car was not parked there." Maybe rewrite it to make it clearer OR maybe it's just me!

s7huj

Thanks All, I made adjustments and dropped the WS and evidence bundle in on Friday. Should I expect some sort of confirmation they've received it?

Thanks.

nosferatu1001

Did you also serve the bundle on the claimant, as required?

The court wont tell you they have recieved it...