BW Reply to SAR request. Please advise

Coupon-mad

Please can all newbies carefully read the NEWBIES thread post #2 where all is explained.

We wish we could answer everyone one by one, but we can't, not till you really need us (e.g. to look at your draft defence).

Georgios_M

Hi All, and thanks for the good advise. Please see below my defence, few days before I submit it.


[FONT=&quot]IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: (xxxxxxxxxx)

BETWEEN:

Britannia Parking Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

(xxxxxxxxxxxx) (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 (XXXX), of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was within the car park for a total of 19 minutes and 17 seconds.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant failed to make a valid payment. However, the signage on site claims that parking up to 30 minutes is free. Therefore, the claim should be considered invalid.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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. (shall I include this or not?)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5. The Claimant replied to my appeal that “The signage states that 30 minutes is free to park, providing you obtain a free ticket from the machine.”. The Defendant had to go back, 15th July 2017, a couple of days after the PCN arrived, in order to confirm this is true and had taken a photo evidence of the signage. 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6. The Defendant visited the parking again, [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]on the 2nd of February 2019,[/FONT] after the receive of this Court Claim . The Defendant has it on good authority that the signage at the car park was changed following the alleged contravention. As such, the current signage at the car park is not applicable to the Claim.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'Total Parking Solutions Ltd v Beavis' case where the terms were concise and far clearer. In the Beavis case, the signs were unusually clear. The Supreme Court were keen to point out within hours of their decision that it related to that car park and those signs and facts only so it certainly does not supersede any other appeal/defence about a different car park.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8. 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. (is that useful?)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]9. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, 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 fee, which has been described as “debt recovery costs”. The claim also includes a separate £50 “Solicitor’s cost” and £11.46 “Interest”. This appears to be an attempt at double recovery. Not only are such costs not permitted by CPR 27.14, but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs. Given the fact that BW Legal boasted in Bagri v BW Legal Ltd of processing ‘millions’ of claims with an admin team and only a handful of solicitors, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut and paste robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]10. 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
[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Date[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Any advise would be greatly appreciated.
[/FONT]

KeithP

In para 3. - surely the Particulars of Claim state that the driver failed to make a valid payment?


In para 5. - the sentence starting "The Defendant..." could be better worded, leaving out the words 'go back'.

Perhaps something like:

On 15th July 2017, a couple of days after the PCN arrived, the Defendant visited the car park in order to confirm this is true and had taken a photo evidence of the signage.

Coupon-mad

Agreed.

A good defence draft though! :T

Georgios_M

Hi All,


Just an update, I just received my DQs and will fill them in as per your advise.


Regards

The_Deep

As this is almost certainly a scam, complain to your MP. They are very familiar with the MO of these ex clampers.

On 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these private parking companies. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Georgios_M

Hi All,


I received BW Legal DQs.


- they ask for madiation. I've already said no to my DQ.
- they left "Hearing Venue" field empty
- they declared zero witnesses for the hearing. Does that mean they will not represent themselves on the day of the hearing?
- they haven't included a fee in the form (only on their opening letter directed to me advising me how to pay as their client decided to persue the claim to the court)


Any comments/advise on the above?


Thanks

Quentin

Hearing venue was down to you to select not the claimant

As you already declined mediation then their wishes are irrelevant

Zero witnesses means they aren't using any witnesses

Coupon-mad

I'm sure they pay fees electronically, so nothing of interest to see there.

Georgios_M

Hi All,


My court days have been allocated in November. Now I need to prepare my witness statements.


Can you please advise where can I find a copy of the Beavis case?


Do I have to post a hard copy of my witness statement to BW Legal? Is email accepted?


Can I email the WS to the Court or am I restricted to hard copies only? The court's email is not shown on the notice of Allocation to the Claims Track I received.




Please see below a draft of my WS. Any comments will be greatly appreciated.


In the County Court at XXXX
Claim No. XXXX
Between

Britannia Parking Ltd (Claimant)


And

XXXX (Defendant)

---

Witness Statement

---

1. I am XXXX, of XXXX, XXX, the Defendant in this matter. Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked as Appendices to which I will refer. I will say as follows:

2. I got married on the XXXXX.

3. On the date of the alleged contravention, XXXX, I picked up my wife’s family from the airport, drove and parked my vehicle registration no XXXX in Travelodge’s car park, where they will be staying for the wedding.

4. While driving in the parking I looked at the signage which claimed in big legible text that up to 30 minutes parking is free.


5. Having seen that, and considering I needed to check in my wife’s family, there was no point on getting closer to the sign and read the full payment instructions as I didn’t have to pay. The terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in a font which is too small and in no contrasting background, 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. Please see a photo of the signage back on that day in Appendices page X.



6. Upon receipt of a parking charge notice from the Claimant, I appealed them with this evidence, however they replied claiming “We consider there to be sufficient, clearly visible signage in the car park to draw your attention to the terms and conditions of the parking contract that is on offer”.



7. Please see a signage photo on the day of the alleged contravention in Appendices page X. Please compare it with a photo of the current signage in Appendices page X. They have changed the signage since the alleged contravention. The fine print have been changed to have a contrasting white background. This means they didn’t consider the previous signage sufficient and decided to change it.


8. Please see google map’s 3D views of the parking space in Appendices page X from the day of the alleged contravention. Please see a series of photos, Appendices page X, showing the additional signs, yellow with big black letter, they have installed since to draw drivers’ attention. This means they didn’t consider the previous signage sufficient and decided to change it.

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.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Signature
Date