Britannia Court Claim Received

KeithP

Is this a hire car or leased car?

Who is the Registered Keeper?

Redx

also on the 26 january in post #4 you were told to tell the defendant (RK or keeper) to email a SAR to the DPO at BRIT to get all their paperwork etc, which should have arrived by now

that SAR reply will answer all of this, but usually it is the KEEPER who is the defendant, unless a driver was named, this is usually obtained from the DVLA

so as KeithP says, why are the letters and Court Claim going to your husband ? somebody must have named him as Keeper even iof he is not the RK or owner

so is it a lease or hire or company vehicle ?

dont just feed us snippets, let us have more of the back story , just dont mention who was actually driving

bear in mind that the insurance idea doesnt matter really, there are tens of thousands of people who can legally drive that vehicle, including me


VERY LITTLE OF WHAT YOU HAVE SAID MAKES ANY SENSE SO FAR, WITH VARIOUS MYSTERIES TO BE SOLVED (cue Miss Marple)


but what strikes me is that you still have the AOS forms , meaning that the AOS has not been completed and so has failed the CCBC deadline for filing an actual AOS

kessik

Sorry, it's difficult to know what's relevant and I was trying to keep it succinct. We went for a night out in the car my husband owns - it's registered to him and taxed and insured in his name. Right from the very first letter we received from Britannia, saying we had overstayed the time we paid for, everything has been addressed to my husband - nothing has been addressed to the registered keeper.

Redx

so if HE owns it , and if he is not the RK, that means that somebody else is the RK, so it is their name on the V5C and not his

so as you say , the question is, if his name is not the RK on the V5C, then whose is on there ? and how did BRIT get your husbands name instead of the RK


surely if he owns it and its registered to him and taxed and insured by him , then he is the RK and its his name on the V5C ? (same as me in that case)

surely it is HIS name on the V5C (check)


a SAR would help to answer all this , a month ago when you first posted about it and had all the forms, its gone downhill since then

Coupon-mad

You don't need the MCOL password to send an email to the CCBC.

kessik

The AoS was sent on January 30, that was the whole gist of my previous posts...where the password was on the forms and whether I could get that information from the people in Northampton. That part at least has been completed.

kessik

Quite right, but I do need one to check that the AoS was received safely in Northampton and because I haven't got a copy of the first page of the claim form or a note of the password I am going to call to Northampton tomorrow and ask whether they can tell me what the password is. I don't hold much hope that they will but I'll ask. If/when I get that I can check the progress on MCOL.

Coupon-mad

No, just ask them if they got the AOS! If they say yes, you don't need the password and I bet they NEVER give that out over the phone to callers.

And ask what the claim number was, if you are missing that too, as you need it.

KeithP

Just remember, as I said earlier:

KeithP wrote: »

If the AoS has been accepted, you have until Monday to file your Defence.

To do that follow the guidance I offered in post #2 above.

kessik

This is what I've come up with for a defence, very late in the day. Still no sign of the SAR so I've had to be vaguer than I'd like. The defence is basically that the parking signs are not illuminated at night, which is when we arrived and left, and one is about 12' off the ground on a wall as you turn into the car park.

I'm not sure if/how I can bring in that the one photo on the PCN only showed the back (or maybe the front?) of the car with no time stamp. I'm not sure what that proves or whether I can put it in the defence when I don't know all the details of the SAR. Anyway, this is what I've got....it's a bit sparse compared to some on here....

---

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 A1 BCD, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay at xxxxxx, xxxx and stayed in the car park for a period longer than two hours.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant Mr X was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle A1 BCD however the claimant makes the assumption that the Registered Keeper of the vehicle was in fact the driver of the vehicle on the date in question but has made no attempts to ascertain whether this was in fact the case.

4. The assertions in the Particulars of Claim 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.

5. 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.

6. 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. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle; is not illuminated; and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily, particularly at night in an unlit area, as was the case on the date in question. 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 £110, for which no calculation is given but is described as 'Solicitors' Fees', and which appear to be artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using 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

---

Is this any good? Should I change #8 to say 'an additional £60 + £50 for which no calculation is given' etc?

Thanks in advance for your help everyone, you've been great.