Letter of Claim BW Legal for Britannia Parking PCN

Bellebelle42

Thank you - that is a few days longer than I thought which is helpful, I am researching the board now to help build my defence

Bellebelle42

Hi - I have drafted a defence which I would appreciate your comments on before I submit. I am not sure if I need to take out the POFA point if I am defending as driver/keeper? I would appreciate your advice.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: XXXXXXXXXX

BETWEEN

Britannia parking group limited (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXXXXX (Defendant)


1. The defendant denies that the claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. It is admitted that the defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, registration XXXXXXXXXX, at the time of the alleged incident.

3. 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 entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

4. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that the claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a parking charge notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXXXXXXXXX when it was parked at XXXXXXXXXX.

5. The particulars of claim state that the defendant XXXXXXXXXX, was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle XXXXXXXXXX. 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 Claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

6. It is denied that a ‘charge notice’ (CN) was affixed to the car on the material date given. The defendant did not know anything about this claim, until the Notice To Keeper.

7. The Parking Charge Notice stated the contravention as ‘Failed to make a valid payment.’ And this contravention is denied.

8. The defendant had purchased a ticket through the mobile app for between xxxx and xxxx. This can be proven with evidence. Due to a chronic health condition, Menieres disease, the defendant suffers from vertigo attacks, during which they are unable to safely operate a vehicle. On the onset of a potential attack the defendant took their medication to mitigate effects of the attack and waited for 30 minutes to be sure it was safe to drive the vehicle. It is shown that the defendant left the car park at xxxx.

9. The claim appears to be based upon damages for breech of contract. However it is denied any contract existed. Accordingly, it is denied that the defendant breached any contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

10. The charge offends against the reasonable and statutory expectations of trader/consumer relations requiring ‘open dealing’ and the doctrine of good faith.

11. The amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable.

12. The claimant states on the parking charge notice that the car park is private land operated by Britannia Parking (the creditor). They are not the owners of the land who any parking contracts would be with.

13. 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 pieces of paper that are not ‘charge notices’, and to pursue payments by means of litigation.

14. 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.

15. 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. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs at all. The Defendant claims that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of robo claims.

16. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that all claimed costs were invoiced and paid. The defendant also asks why they waited nearly 1 year to bring this to court and why they believe their own negligence and delay should earn a Claimant 8% interest, to the imbalance of a consumer's rights and interests.

17. The Claimant has spent almost 6 months harassing the Defendant with ever increasing and intimidating demands, pursuing the baseless charge, sending debt collectors letters, emails and even phone calls while at work, causing the Defendant and their family significant stress, despite having no basis for the outrageous charge of £xxx.

18. In summary, it is the Defendants position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. The Defendant trusts that the presiding Judge will recognise this wholly unreasonable conduct as a gross abuse of process and may consider 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 Statement are true.

Name

Signature

Date

Coupon-mad

Looks good. I noticed a typo - this means a breech birth of a baby feet first!

breech

I would remove #12 as it adds nothing and grates, as it ends with the word 'with'!

I would add to this:

11. The amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable, and this Claimant's case fails to disengage the penalty rule. In all respects, including the facts of the Defendant's disability (the debilitating medical condition already mentioned) the fact-specific decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 is fully distinguished.

Bellebelle42

Thank you! Damn copy and paste

Bellebelle42

So, defence has been submitted on time. I then received another letter from BW Legal stating that if I do not pay or respond to court papers then a CCJ would be taken out against me - just more scare tactics I assume? I have responded by completing AOS and submitting my defence so just ignore?

Thank you!

KeithP

Bellebelle42 wrote: »

...so just ignore?

That's correct.

Bellebelle42

Ok so I now have a Notice if Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track with my Directions Questionnaire. I have until 28th May to file. I am assuming mediation route is pointless?

KeithP

Bellebelle42 wrote: »

Ok so I now have a Notice if Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track with my Directions Questionnaire. I have until 28th May to file. I am assuming mediation route is pointless?

No need to make that assumption or any assumption.

Follow the guidance offered in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread - in particular, bargepole's 'what happens when' post that explains exactly how to answer every question on that form.

Coupon-mad

No idea why anyone asks us about Mediation, but many still ask. This is fully covered in the NEWBIES thread anyway and easy to search for that keyword, too.