Britannia Court Claim Received

kessik

Can anyone tell me if this is going to be enough for my defence please?

kessik

Hi Everyone,

I've added a bit more to this - can anyone let me know whether they think it's okay to send and if I've covered all bases, or alternatively whether I've put too much in now please?

Many thanks

---

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. The driver has not been identified therefore there should be no grounds to pursue the Defendant as the Registered Keeper and would suggest that this claim is withdrawn with immediate effect.
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.
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.
5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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. In addition to the original PCN penalty, for which liability is denied, 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. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs.
7.1 In the alternative it was held in the Supreme Court in Beavis (where £85 was claimed and no more) that a private parking charge already includes a very significant and high percentage in profit and more than covers the costs of running an automated regime of template letters.
7.2 The claimant may try to rely upon Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 however, with no ‘legitimate interest’ excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant is fully aware that their claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail.

8. 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.

KeithP

Something needs to be filed by 4pm.

kessik

Which one do you think is better Keith? I'm all ready to go, just want some feedback.

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Don't put an admission in, if this is about allegedly parking for too long:

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.

Include your point that the only evidence photo the claimant has shown during the Pre-Action phase, is one photo on the PCN, which showed the back (or maybe the front?) of the car with no time stamp.

Print it NOW!! Once you've added that to your second version, no more asking.

And sign & date it, then scan it and attach it to the email with your claim number and 'URGENT - DEFENCE ' in the subject line!

No asking us any more, get this emailed to the email addy KeithP gave you already! URGENT, within the next 2 hours, must be done!

kessik

It's gone. Thank you so much to everyone who has helped me in spite of my dithering around. You are all S*T*A*R*S

Coupon-mad

OK, now read the section in the NEWBIES thread about what happens when, and please don't ask us in a week's time how to complete the DQ, nor come back at hearing stage and say you didn't realise you had to file & serve a WS and evidence!

Be prepared and informed, and ready.

kessik

Re. the debate about my BW Legal and Britannia addressing all correspondence to my husband - I said that we'd never been asked who was the Registered Keeper? Their witness statement says 'The Claimant, as an approved operator and under its contract with the DVLA obtained the vehicle's registered keeper details from the DVLA'. Is this the norm now? Does it have any bearing on the case? We were never asked if my husband was the RK and there's nothing in their statement to say we'd told them he was. There is a lot of extraneous photos, letters and so on...also photos of the signage but taken at a totally different time of day and year to when we parked - I'm hoping that this doesn't count for anything in BP's favour.

KeithP

But you told us earlier:

kessik wrote: »

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.

I don't understand what you are currently asking.

Your husband is the Registered Keeper.
The PPC obtained the Registered Keeper's details from the DVLA.
The PPC has been writing to the Registered Keeper.
This is entirely normal and to be expected.


Perhaps more pertinent... what has happened since February?
The Defendant has presumably received, completed and returned a Directions Questionnaire.

Has a hearing date yet been set at the Defendant's local County Court?

Coupon-mad

What about your WS and evidence, as I mentioned you need to do, in my last reply?

Coupon-mad wrote: »

OK, now read the section in the NEWBIES thread about what happens when, and please don't...

come back at hearing stage and say you didn't realise you had to file & serve a WS and evidence!

Be prepared and informed, and ready.