Britannia/BW Legal Is it too late? PCN Portswood

FineForWhat

Also forgot to mention, Britannia have stated that the 30 days response period begins when they have received the additional information. Is this right? and do I even have to supply them with additional information?

Coupon-mad

I think confirming the PCN and VRN are not a problem, in order to get the SAR data.

FineForWhat

I've just submitted my AOS on MCOL and now need to work on my defence. However, I am still yet to receive the SAR from Britannia. Can I start my defence before, or is it wise to wait?

KeithP

Of course you should certainly be thinking about your Defence now.

At least be reading other Defences and making yourself aware of the requirements.

Probably be able to write most of it without te SAR response - that may be more useful at Witness Statement and evidence stage.

KeithP

FineForWhat wrote: »

I've just submitted my AOS on MCOL and now need to work on my defence.

I've just realised that to do the AoS you must have received a Claim Form.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

FineForWhat

Issue Date was 20th Feb

Also I mentioned before that Britannia replied to my SAR request with the following email.

"Can you please confirm the PCN number, Vehicle registration and your address at the time of the contravention, so I can search our system.

Currently the only information I have to go by is your surname and the returned results are too large to narrow it down without the extra information.

Please be aware the one calendar month period to responding to your SAR begins when we receive the additional information.

Thank you


Kind Regards,"

It's worth mentioning that I confirmed my address in the original request so I'm not really sure how they struggled to find my details.

Is it true about the one month period now being extended? and what happens if they miss this deadline?

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 20th February, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 25th March 2019 to file your Defence.

That's three weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

FineForWhat

A draft of my defence for critique. I wasn't sure if it was worth mentioning that the car park is a 'free car park' whether that will assist my case or not I don't know, so I haven't mentioned it for now.

N THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:!

Britannia Parking LTD (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (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 XXXXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay at Portswood Centre.

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.

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.

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. 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.

9. 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

FineForWhat

Can anyone tell me if this will be enough?

Le_Kirk

It looks like one of Bargepole's concisely written defences so should be good to go.