County Court Claim Issued - Northampton

bartlebobton

All tidy now with the threads.... thanks to one of the Board Guides :-)
Now, back to the parking nonsense for bw legal....

See below my defence, which I've sent .... I never realised just how many defence docs there were on this forum.... Some are pretty entertaining.... I think mine is more of a C than an A*

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No:

Britannia Parking
-and-
(Defendant)


DEFENCE


1. The Defendant denies the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The Defendant is the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question
3. The facts are that on the material date the Defendant’s vehicle entered the car park and parked in a free space allocated while visiting a nearby store “nnnn Cycles” for a period of 20 minutes. nnnn Cycles told me parking to the rear of their shop was free for 30minutes. I used the carpark on xxxxx from xxxx to xxxx I collected my bicycle put it in the back of my car and drove home.

Particulars of Claim
4. The Claimant has failed to provide any details of the claim prior to issuing a claim at court. As such, the Claimant has failed to comply with the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, para 6 (a) & (c).
The Letter before Action fails to provide the following information:
i A clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.
ii A list of the relevant documents on which the claimant intends to rely.
iii How the “Principal Debt and Initial Legal Costs” of £160.00 pounds has been calculated.


5. The particulars of claim fail to meet CPR16.4 and PD16 7.3-7.5 consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum. The claim form itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the claimant’s case.

6. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought i.e. whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'. This has denied the Defendant a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.

7. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person the Defendant respectfully requests permission to amend and/or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a full disclosure of the Claimant's case.

8. 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 when parking at nnnn on nnnn. It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice (PCN)'.

9. In any event, it is denied that the signage used by this claimant at the time of the alleged contravention, could have created a fair or transparent contract. The signage was confusing, unclear and hence incapable of binding the driver, thus distinguishing this case from ParkingEye v Beavis. Furthermore, the designs I would describe as “confusing” and a “trap” On the day in question there were very heavy rain showers, deeming signs difficult to read; none of the signs are covered, they sit exposed to the elements. Furthermore, I need reading and distance glasses, which I didn’t have with me on the day in question. I would note that I do not legally require reading/distance glasses to drive.

10. The contract is unenforceable. There is no legal right to charge members of the public for not printing a ticket, when they have not exceeded a free parking period, in this case 30 minutes, this is wholly unfair and a violation of consumer protection law. The non printing of a ticket is simply a ruse and nonsensical, particularly when video evidence is available; date and time stamped with a photograph of a vehicle, confirming the vehicle was parked for 20mins.


The Behaviour of Britannia Parking, Debt Recovery Plus Ltd and bwlegal
11. There has been a continual flow of correspondence, in sequential order, from Britannia Parking, Debt Recovery Plus Ltd and bwlegal, indulging in pernicious bullying tactics against me, requesting, monies, I create an account and complete a very comprehensive “income and expenditure form” My view is each of these companies rely on apathy, or victims which lack the ability or funds to fight back”.
In the interests of Natural Justice, and a duty to act fairly, I humbly request that the Court consider awarding costs against Britannia Parking, for the hours of work preparing this defence and reviewing their continual bombardment of aggressive correspondence.

The will of Parliament
12. The money demanded by Britannia Parking, Debt Recovery Plus Ltd and bwlegal, 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 scheduled for the 4th March 2019, then follows > Consideration of amendments>Royal Assent. The new law is one step from Royal Assent.

Local 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 nation's motorists.'

MP for Chelmsford, Vicky Ford, stated by email in her correspondence with me on 23/1/19: “I so understand your concerns. I have been contacted by a number of my constituents who have raised the same concerns. I believe that this is completely unacceptable behaviour on the part of Britannia Parking”




Unconscionable and unreasonable inflation of costs
13. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. In addition to the 'parking charge', the Claimant's legal representatives,!BWLegal, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £60 which has not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. This further highlights the disrespect bwlegal have for the Courts and the rule of Natural Justice. Bwlegal are serial offenders of this unlawful, pernicious practice and I humbly request the courts penalise them in the interest of Justice.
14. 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.!


No locus standi
15. 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.
16. It is believed that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied by the Claimant until the last possible minute, to the significant detriment of the unrepresented Defendant. This practice is not in the best interests of Natural Justice and demonstrates a lack of respect to the court.
17. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons
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 in the interests of Natural Justice, its duty to act fairly and the will of parliament, award costs against Britannia Parking and strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

Statement of Truth:!

I believe the facts contained in this!Defence!are true.!


Name

Signature

Date





1 of 5 | Page

bartlebobton

Does anyone have any comments ?

Le_Kirk

Does anyone have any comments?

See below my defence, which I've sent

Bit late if you've sent it!

bartlebobton

It doesn't matter hugely if it's been sent or not. I'll be given the opportunity maybe, maybe not...to expand on points I've raised. As I'm sure you are aware, courts don't always behave in the same way, some Judges are sympathetic and gently nudge you along, others are more strict, it's not an exact science. So I don't have any problem with any constructive criticism.
Also, I stated: " unrepresented litigant-in-person the Defendant respectfully requests permission to amend and/or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a full disclosure of the Claimant's case" Possibly, possibly not, I could be given the opportunity to add further points to my defence. Again, this will depend very much upon the Judge, if the latter sees these parking offences as an affront to Justice, an argument close to being presentable, then I would expect a positive outcome.

So, I don't necessarily agree with you for the aforementioned reasons...


Best wishes .... BB

nosferatu1001

Formally you will need to apply to the court, costing at least £100, to amend your defence.

bartlebobton

..... if, bwlegal come up with some sort of explanation as to the type of contract I've entered into, and explain all about their signage, when it was installed, date/time and so on, I can't belief I won't be able to respond, ask questions, essentially I will be defending myself, albeit not being on paper.... I'm not going to sit in court as a mute... like Anne Frank with a drum kit.... ! You can always respectfully ask a Judge if you can comment on a statement.... he/she might say no, equally they might say, yes....

Interestingly, someone used an EU ruling as part of their "Defence Statement" ...all about entering into a contract, that you actually haven't seen.... I only saw that on one Defence Statement.... I wonder why....

nosferatu1001

1) The written defence you have entered is just that. Final. Unless you pay to amend it to introduce new legal arguments
2) Of couse they can try to expalin how your defence doesnt hold - same as, when you see their WS bundle, you wil try to show how their claim is still falwed. But the actual DEFENCE remains unaltered.

Your posting style is horrible to read. Please us normal sentences

Oh, and if the judge tells you to be quiet, you better be quiet. Arguing with them never ends well.

bartlebobton

Thank you, I understand points 1 and 2.

Well, I don't know how many times you've been to court, but from my own personal experience, (5 different Judges), I'd say they all have their own style, it's the nature of the beast. Perhaps your experiences have been different ? The legal arguments, on paper might not change, but the interplay between both sides have an ebb and flow, with a dash of jetsam and flotsam, so the opportunity to introduce another legal argument could be there to take. How many Judges do you think read all the Defence papers in their entirety, or inventory of productions, not all I'd wager.... The point I'm making is, as I said earlier, it's not an exact science, there is give and take, I think you'll agree with that perhaps ?

It's my style of writing, whether you like it or not is inconsequential to me. Plenty of others find no difficulty in comprehending what I say.

The idea is to treat the Court like it's the Judges living room, so don't put you feet on the table, or flick ash on his Wilton carpet.... I'm well aware of how to behave in Court, thank you for the tip anyway.

Filled with optimism, I'll now return to my original request; if anyone has any constructive criticism, of the Defence paper I'd be happy to review their thoughts/ideas/comments/strategy

Best wishes,
BB

nosferatu1001

THere might be chance, but a proper advocate would catch it, point out this was not pleaded in teh defence (or claim), and require it to be ignored.

It isnt exact, but playing within the rules - and exposing them for introducing new arguments in their WS, as they always seem to do - gets you on one side.

Youre on a forum, text only, looking for help. How your writing style is read should be of some concern. Ignore if you wish. Your choice.

bartlebobton

That's exactly as I put it, not an exact science, maybe they will, maybe they won't, good to see we see eye to eye on that one.

As you possibly know, the rules get bent from time to time, lines blurred, good Judicial sense can override a swathe of nonsense.

I'll respectfully ignore your 3rd paragraph, but will add, if you feel like complaining, feel free to follow the complaints procedure, or perhaps publish a book on literacy and style. I look forward to reading the first edition, perhaps you'll sign a copy for me ?

Best wishes.... BB