Brittania parking- BW Legal

Mrs44474

Thanks! Good spot 😆

Mrs44474

Should I just delete point 2# admitting to be keeper and driver? And keep number 4 as is?

Granny_P

Independent firms are not allowed to issue a PCN - only councils are. These parking firms send out invoices and might even quote the Supreme Court decision re Beavis as justification for extorting ridiculous amounts of fines. However, if you quote the following and pay for the amount of time you overstayed in a paid car park, you have case law on your side.

In the case of Parking Eye vs Cargius, it was held that the Beavis case did not apply since parking was paid for rather than free for a limited period. The judge distinguishes it by reasoning that, in Beavis ,the charge was justifiable as it was their only income, whereas in a paid car park, only the hourly charge is being lost by overstaying (eg £2); anything above that is clearly a penalty.

Always worth a try.

beamerguy

Granny_P wrote: »

Independent firms are not allowed to issue a PCN - only councils are.

Councils issue PENALTY CHARGE NOTICES (PCN)
Private companies issue PARKING CHARGE NOTICES (PCN)

You need to understand POFA2012

Mrs44474

I already tried paying the extra for the overstay with no joy.

It’s a bit late now as my defence needs to be submitted in a few weeks.

Thanks though.

Any more advice on my defence or is it good to go? With the adjustments?

Umkomaas

In the case of Parking Eye vs Cargius, it was held that the Beavis case did not apply since parking was paid for rather than free for a limited period.

PE v Cargius sets no precedent, it was simply a well reported, but standard county court case, for which a transcript was purchased by the defendant and placed within the public domain.

Too many see this as the antidote to Beavis.

Mrs44474

Hello everyone. Just bumping for last time before emailing it on! Any corrections or advise would be appreciated. Corrected the Joiley error, taken away point 2 with admitting to be driver.. and edited the points so it’s to the point so I can go in detail on witness statement.

Anything else?

I’ll post my final draft tonight, I think, before emailing.

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. 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.
5. 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.
6. The defendant had a car park ticket displayed for between 07:50-15:50. This can be proven with evidence. The defendant tried to obtain another parking ticket to increase stay period but all machines on all levels were not working. (We have video evidence of one machine not working, do we mention that here?)
7. The defendant proceeded to try to use the mobile phone app to purchase a ticket. Unfortunately due to lack of signal the ticket would not go through.
8. 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.
9. In Jolley 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. The charge offends against the reasonable and statutory expectations of trader/consumer relations requiring ‘open dealing’ and the doctrine of good faith.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.”
21. 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.
22. 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


Is this good to go???

Le_Kirk

Evidence comes later at the Witness Statement (WS) stage. It looks like you have a case of frustration of contract (PDT machines not working and no phone signal), so mention that. Some of the defence reads like a WS, check the concisely written defences by Bargepole in the NEWBIE thread post #2.

Coupon-mad

causing the Defendant and their family significant stress, despite having no basis for the outrageous charge of £145.

I am sure the claim is for at least £100 more than that?