Brittania parking- BW Legal

beamerguy

Becky44474 wrote: »

I don’t know that I have enough to write a large defence. The machines weren’t working. So we couldn’t get an update ticket after our previous one ran out. I can’t say things about unclear signage etc as that was all fine ��

You don't need a large defence.

Machine not working. Proof is required from the PPC that is was working.
You previously paid and could not renew ... frustration of contract

The signs for you mean nothing

Mrs44474

Hi again. I still cannot find bargepoles concise defence template. I see it continuously refered to, and pointed to the newbies thread but I cannot find it. Perhaps can't see it for looking lol.

Also, I can't seem to find a defence mentioning how the fine charges are extortionate in comparison to council charges? I know I've read it on defences but now that I'm actually writing up my defence I can't!

Can anyone word it for me or point me in the direction of a defence containing it? Reading so many defences my mind feels like mush.

I'll post what I have so far later on. Would appreciate everyone's critique.

Also I did the AOS yesterday. ����

Le_Kirk

Go to the NEWBIE thread, scroll down to post # 2 and then keep scrolling until you reach this: -

Here are some cases won or in progress:

Here is a defence

There are several defences written concisely by Bargepole.

nosferatu1001

The comparison to council parking really got thrown away. Yuove only seen it in old defnces.

Mrs44474

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Go to the NEWBIE thread, scroll down to post # 2 and then keep scrolling until you reach this: -



There are several defences written concisely by Bargepole.

Ah I've read all of those. Okay. I was thinking there was a specific one in mind. Great. I'll update later with my draft.

Mrs44474

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. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. The Parking Charge Notice stated the contravention as ‘Failed to make a valid payment.’ And this
contravention is denied. The defendant denies liability for the purported parking charge (penalty),
due to the machines not working. The machines on all three levels were not working.

7. The defendant had a car park ticket displayed for between 07:50-15:50. This can be proven with evidence. The defendant and family were not finished with their day at the aquarium, therefore the defendant went to renew his ticket for a further couple of hours around 13:45. However, upon trying all machines on all three levels not working the defendant found this extremely difficult. (We have video evidence of one machine not working, do we mention that here?)

8. The defendant proceeded to try to use the mobile phone app to purchase a ticket and headed back to the aquarium whilst it was trying to go through. Unfortunately due to lack of signal the ticket would not go through. Therefore the defendant proceeded to collect his family from the aquarium, pay for their group ticket, say goodbye to the group of friends they had attended with, and return to the car park. Upon return to the car park, the Defendants wife needed to feed their new-born baby. All which took some time. It is shown the car park was exited at 17:01.

9. The defendant made all reasonable efforts to make payment for parking by using approved payment channels. It is a fault of the car park management that the machines malfunctioned not the defendants.

10. In Joiley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 – EGLR – 154, it was held that a party, who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach.

11. The defendant offered to pay the cost of the ticket that he tried to purchase that day, and sent a cheque for the sum of £4.50, equal to the payment he had made for three hour’s that same day; when the Defendant bought the first ticket. The cheque was returned.

12. The defendant asked for the Pay and Display machine record from that day, of payments made; to see how long the machines were out of order on said day, however no response was given. The defendant asked outright why the machines were not working and how long they were out of order. The claimant refused to supply this information.

13. A Subject Access Request was asked for on the 25th January 2019 upon receipt of Letter Of Claim, to which the claimant had 30 days to respond. No response was given.

14. 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.

15. It is clear that no conduct by the Defendant caused the penalty to arise and a professional parking firm could not reasonably lay any blame with the Defendant, for their own failure.

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

17. The amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable, especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local council, which is set to £50, or £25 if paid within 14 days.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. The money demanded by Britannia Parking, and B W Legal, is against the will of parliament. The Parking (Code Of Practice) Bill 2017-19 is now at the 3rd reading in the House of Lords, which took place on the 4th March 2019, then follows > consideration of amendments > Royal Assent. The new law is one step from Royal Assent. Government minister, Rishi Sunak, stated: “Millions of drivers use private car parks every day, and far too many of them are receiving unjust fines at the hands of rogue firms.” “We need a fairer, clearer and more consistent system that puts the brake on the unfair practices being experienced by too many drivers.” “I am delighted that MPs have unanimously backed these changes and that the Government is on track to create a better system for our nations motorists.”

22. 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 £145.

23. 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


I would appreciate any advice!

Le_Kirk

You need to split out your defence points from the story of the day, which will late become your Witness Statement (WS) and, at that time, you submit your evidence.

For example the PDTs were not working, this is frustration of contract, goes in your defence. The story of coming back to extend your ticket goes in the WS.

Mrs44474

Do I have to mention that I have the evidence here in the defence?

Le_Kirk

If you read some of the concise defences written by Bargepole and to be found in NEWBIE section post # 2, I don't think you will see any evidence mentioned.

Coupon-mad

4. 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.

Not sure the above usual wording makes much sense where in #1 you have admitted being the keeper and the driver. I'd remove that line as it adds nothing where you are admitting to being both of the either/or menu of choices!

And:

Jolley v Carmel, not 'Joiley'.