Letter of Claim (County Court) Britannia Parking & BW Legal

Coupon-mad

That will do for later as a basis for your Witness Statement.

For now, adapt the 'hidden ipad' one I pointed you to find, in the NEWBIES thread.

JRL_2

Coupon-mad wrote: »

That will do for later as a basis for your Witness Statement.

For now, adapt the 'hidden ipad' one I pointed you to find, in the NEWBIES thread.

Thank you SO MUCH for your help so far, I cannot begin to state how grateful I am.

Here's my adapted defence based on the Parking Eye Odeon / Ipad defence. I have to admit that some sections quoting previous cases are cut and paste jobs as they seem relevant but I am not sure whether to include them. If they are indeed not relevant then please let me know and I will remove. (specifically sections 10-13)

Here goes:

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the driver's ‘failure to make a valid payment’, when parking at Army & Navy Chelmsford ANPR car park on 13/08/2017. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant £100 'parking charge' for the lawful conduct described below

2. The allegation appears to be that the ‘no valid payment was made’ based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit and is no evidence of a contravention or failure to make payment

3. The Defendant has already proved that he was parked for less than the 30 minutes in which the Chelmsford Army & Navy ANPR signage states there is no charge for parking, and it is the Claimant's own failure, caused by their deliberately obscure terms and confusing pay and display machinery that catches out far too many victims at this location, that has given rise to a 'PCN' that was not properly issued from the outset.

4. The Defendant was never issued a PCN for the supposed offence until after first being contacted by a third party ‘Debt Recovery Plus’ on 25/09/17 stating they operated on behalf of the claimant. A PCN was only received by the Defendant on 27/09/17 after directly contacting the Claimant on 25/09/17 to enquire as to its whereabouts, at which point an admission was made that they would send the PCN to me and ‘call off’ Debt Recovery Plus.

Background
5. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark ***** which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with LV with 2 named drivers permitted to use it.

5.1 It is admitted that on 13/08/17 the Defendant's vehicle was parked at Chelmsford Army & Navy (ANPR) Car Park
5.2 The Parking Charge Notice was appealed to the Claimant directly and was rejected on vague grounds.
5.3 The Defendants vehicle has parked within a marked bay for 23 minutes, less than the 30 minute period during which no parking charge can be levied

6. Conclusive evidential photographs with timestamp
6.1 The car park in which the Defendant’s vehicle was parked states a period of 30 minutes in which no charge can be levied or required by the landowner or Claimant.
6.2 The Defendant’s vehicle, as evidenced by the Claimant’s own photographs, show the time of entry into the car park as 13/08/17 at 12.48 and the time of exit as 13/08/17 at 13.11
6.3 At no point was the Defendant’s vehicle in the car park during any chargeable period for which the Claimant can seek financial loss or compensation

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

7. It is denied that the Defendant was in breach of any parking conditions or was not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of Evans Cycles, The Army & Navy, 6 Parkway, Chelmsford CM2 7GY, whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or a specific display position of a valid parking permit or ticket.

Data Protection Act and BPA Code of Practice breach

8. This Claimant uses ANPR camera systems to process data but fails to comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information' (the ICO Code). This is both a specific Data Protection and BPA Code of Practice breach.

8.1. The ICO Code applies to all ANPR systems, and states that the private sector is required to follow it, in order to meet its legal obligations as a data processor. Members of the BPA are required to comply fully with the Data Protection Act (DPA) and all ICO rules and guidelines, as a pre-requisite of being able to use the DVLA KADOE system and in order to enforce parking charges on private land.

8.2. The Claimant's failures to comply include, but are not limited to the following, and the Claimant is put to strict proof otherwise on all counts:

i) Lack of an initial privacy impact assessment, and

ii) Lack of an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, considering concepts that would impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle, and

iii) Failure to regularly evaluate whether it was necessary and proportionate to continue using ANPR, together with a Pay and Display style system as a secondary data processing system at this site, as opposed to a less privacy-intrusive method of parking enforcement (such as 'light touch' enforcement only at busy times, or manning the car park with a warden in order to consider the needs of genuine patrons), and

iv) Failure to consider the number of complaints from the landowner and other businesses, which would have alerted this Claimant to the fact that their ‘Pay and Display / ANPR' and confusing signage was not being seen and/or understood by all genuine patrons and was therefore a wholly inappropriate method of data capture, which was unreliable at best and negligent (or even deliberately misleading) at worst, being the main cause of unfair parking charges against Evans Cycles patrons, and

v) Failure to prominently inform a driver in large lettering on clear signage, of the purpose of the ANPR system and the Pay & Display system and how the data captured on both would be used, and

vi) Lack of the 'Privacy Notice' required to deliver mandatory information about an individual's right of subject access, under the DPA. At no point has the Defendant been advised how to apply for, and what a data subject's rights are, to obtain all images and data held via a Subject Access Request from the Claimant.

9. This Claimant has therefore failed to meet its legal obligations and has breached principle 1 (at least) of the DPA, as well as the BPA Code of Practice.



Unlawful conduct/data use and breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015
10. In a similar instance of DPA failure by excessive and inappropriate use of ANPR cameras - confirmed on this Claimant's Trade Body (BPA) website in a 2013 article urging its members to comply - Hertfordshire Constabulary was issued with an enforcement notice. The force were ordered to stop processing people's information via ANPR until they could comply. The Information Commissioner ruled that the collection of the information was specifically illegal; breaching principle one of the DPA.

11. The Court's attention will be drawn to the case of Andre Agassi v S Robinson (HM Inspector of Taxes). Whilst not wholly aligned to the issues in this case, it is on all fours with the above point, because of the principle it extols that no one should profit from their unlawful conduct. Paragraph 20 of the Transcript of that case states: ''It is common ground that, whatever costs may be recoverable by a litigant in respect of professional services such as those provided by Tenon to the appellant, they cannot include the cost of any activities which are unlawful''. Paragraph 28 continues - ''...cannot on any view recover the cost of activities performed by Tenon which it was not lawful for them to perform.''

11.1. Further, in RTA (Business Consultants) Limited v Bracewell [2015] EWHC 630 (QB) (12 March 2015), at paragraph 34 the Judge discusses the relevance of the public law principle going back well over 200 years, that no man should profit from his crime; it is submitted that this is particularly relevant in this action. The Judge cited Lord Mansfield CJ to explain that: ''The principle of public policy is this; ex dolo malo non oritur actio. No Court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act. If [...] the cause of action appears to arise ex turpi causa, or the transgression of a positive law of this country, there the Court says he has no right to be assisted. It is upon that ground the Court goes; not for the sake of the defendant, but because they will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff.''

12. Even if there was a purported contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, it was illegal at its formation because it was incapable of being created without an illegal act (due to non-compliance with the ICO requirements at the outset, before enforcement started using ANPR systems at this site).

12.1. Where a contract is illegal when formed, neither party will acquire rights under that contract, regardless of whether or not there was an intention to break the law; the contract will be void and treated as if it had never been entered into. As such, the asserted contract cannot be enforced.

12.2. To add weight, the Defendant also cites from ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1338. Whilst the facts of that case differ, due to the arguments between the two commercial parties, the Judge's comments at paragraph 29 of the Transcript of Somerfield are of importance, where he discussed ParkingEye's misleading letters to consumers, whereby they had committed the tort of deceit. : ''At common law, historically, a distinction has been drawn between cases where the guilty party intended from the time of entering the contract unlawfully and cases where the intention to perform unlawfully was only made subsequently''. Laws LJ, in Somerfield, concluded that ParkingEye did not set out to deceive consumers before they signed the contract with Somerfield, so the contract was upheld in that case.

12.2.1. Differently in this case, it is asserted that the Claimant did deliberately or negligently break the DPA. Being a BPA member with access to a wealth of ICO and DVLA-led data compliance information, relevant articles, compliance events and specific parking & DPA related legal advice for members, and given that this Claimant has its own in-house Legal Team and solicitors, it cannot justify nor plead ignorance to excuse their conduct in failing to meet their legal obligations both before enforcement and by way of regular evaluations to avoid just this sort of data abuse.

12.2.2. At paragraphs 65-74 of the Somerfield transcript, Laws LJ set out three factors which need to be considered in a defence of illegality. The Defendant submits that the key issues in this action are that:

(i) the commission of an illegal wrong being present at the time of entering the contract means that the Claimant will not be able to enforce the contract.

(ii) the illegality is central to the contract and is not merely a minor aspect, thus it should not be held to be too remote so as to render the contract enforceable.

(iii) the nature of the illegality: in this case it was a breach of legal obligations regarding data, and not merely a civil tort as in Somerfield. The gravity of the illegality is therefore far greater.

13. The Defendant avers that a breach of the DPA and failure to comply with ICO rules regarding data captured by ANPR, also transgresses the tests of fairness and transparency of consumer contracts, as set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (enacted after the final hearing in Beavis and not considered in that case).

13.1. The excessive, inappropriate and unjustified use of ANPR alongside a hidden Pay & Display system by this claimant is both unfair and lacking in transparency for an average consumer and as such, this claim must fail.


Unconscionable and unrecoverable inflation of the 'parking charge'

14. In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported Solicitor's Costs of £50, which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.

14.1. Whilst £50 may be recoverable in an instance where a claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim, Britannia Parking Ltd have not expended any such sum in this case. This Claimant has a Legal Team with salaried in-house Solicitors and it files hundreds of similar 'cut & paste' robo-claims per month, not incurring any legal cost per case. I put the Claimant to strict proof to the contrary because the in-house Solicitors cannot possibly be believed to be paid in the millions per annum for their services.

15. The added 'legal' cost is in fact an artificially invented figure, which represents a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules and achieve double recovery.

15.1. Similarly, in Somerfield (above) a £75 parking charge was not held to be a penalty but a sum mentioned in the harassing letters of double that amount, almost certainly would be.

16. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

I confirm that the facts in this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Coupon-mad

I have crossed some parts out of that template that I now think are too wordy:

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the driver's ‘failure to make a valid payment’, when parking at [STRIKE]Army & Navy Chelmsford ANPR[/STRIKE] a retail car park on 13/08/2017. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant £100 'parking charge'.

2. The allegation appears to be that the ‘no valid payment was made’ based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit and is no evidence of a contravention or failure to make payment. Further, this contravention cannot have occurred, given the facts and evidence.

3. The Defendant has already proved that he was parked for less than the 30 minutes in which the Chelmsford Army & Navy ANPR signage states there is no charge for parking, and it is the Claimant's own failure, caused by their deliberately obscure terms and confusing pay and display machinery that catches out far too many victims at this location, that has given rise to a 'PCN' that was not properly issued from the outset.

4. The Defendant was never issued a PCN for the supposed offence until after first being contacted by a third party ‘Debt Recovery Plus’ on 25/09/17 stating they operated on behalf of the claimant. A PCN was only received by the Defendant on 27/09/17 after directly contacting the Claimant on 25/09/17 to enquire as to its whereabouts, at which point an admission was made that they would send the PCN to [STRIKE]me[/STRIKE] the Defendant and ‘call off’ Debt Recovery Plus.

4.1. Tellingly, the original PCN then arrived, along with another copy in a separate envelope, and it is averred that the Claimant had filed away the original, due to negligence or malice, which explains why the first letter was from debt collectors.

[STRIKE]Background
5. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark ***** which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with LV with 2 named drivers permitted to use it.

5.1 It is admitted that on 13/08/17 the Defendant's vehicle was parked at Chelmsford Army & Navy (ANPR) Car Park
5.2 The Parking Charge Notice was appealed to the Claimant directly and was rejected on vague grounds.[/STRIKE]

5. The Defendant's vehicle has parked within a marked bay and according to the Claimant's own images, remained on site for a mere 23 minutes. This is less than the 30 minute period offered in large lettering on a sign, where other terms were in much smaller font size and were not visible. [STRIKE]during which no parking charge can be levied[/STRIKE]

6. Conclusive evidential photographs with timestamp
6.1 The car park in which the Defendant’s vehicle was parked states a period of 30 minutes in which no charge can be levied or required by the landowner or Claimant.
6.2 The Defendant’s vehicle, as evidenced by the Claimant’s own photographs, show the time of entry into the car park as 13/08/17 at 12.48 and the time of exit as 13/08/17 at 13.11
6.3 At no point was the Defendant’s vehicle in the car park during any chargeable period for which the Claimant can seek financial loss or compensation. There was no breach, and no contract at all.

[STRIKE]Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract[/STRIKE]

[STRIKE]7. It is denied that the Defendant was in breach of any parking conditions or was not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of Evans Cycles, The Army & Navy, 6 Parkway, Chelmsford CM2 7GY, whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or a specific display position of a valid parking permit or ticket.[/STRIKE]

7. ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('Beavis') also related to a retail car park, but it is fully distinguished. In the instant case before the court, there was a 'concealed pitfall or trap' in the misleading signs which were emblazoned 'FIRST 30 MINUTES PARKING FREE'. The doctrine of contra proferentem must be applied in favour of the consumer, where terms are in any way ambiguous in their drafting or display.

7.1. There can be no 'commercial justification' nor legitimate interest in charging drivers who are patrons of the shops, for using the free parking time offered. Further, there was no overstay nor any mischief to deter, nor was there any misuse of a valuable parking space by the Defendant who parked in good faith.

7.2. In addition, there can be no cause of action in a parking charge case without a 'relevant obligation' and/or 'relevant contract' (the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 refers).

[STRIKE]Data Protection Act and BPA Code of Practice breach[/STRIKE]

8. This Claimant uses ANPR camera systems to process data but fails to comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information' (the ICO Code). This is both a specific Data Protection and BPA Code of Practice breach. The Supreme Court Judges in Beavis held that a Code of Practice is effectively 'regulation' for this blatantly rogue industry, full compliance with which is both mandatory and binding upon any parking operator.

8.1. The ICO Code applies to all ANPR systems, and states that the private sector is required to follow it, in order to meet its legal obligations as a data processor. Members of the BPA are required to comply fully with the Data Protection Act (DPA) and all ICO rules and guidelines, as a pre-requisite of being able to use the DVLA KADOE system and in order to enforce parking charges on private land.

8.2. The Claimant's failures to comply include, but are not limited to the following, and the Claimant is put to strict proof otherwise on all counts:

i) Lack of an initial privacy impact assessment, and

ii) Lack of an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, considering concepts that would impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle, and

iii) Failure to regularly evaluate whether it was necessary and proportionate to continue using ANPR, together with a Pay and Display style system as a secondary data processing system at this site, as opposed to a less privacy-intrusive method of parking enforcement, such as (very simply) not applying for DVLA data to issue any PCNs to keepers of cars seen on site for less than the 30 minutes advertised as free. [STRIKE]'light touch' enforcement only at busy times, or manning the car park with a warden in order to consider the needs of genuine patrons[/STRIKE]), and

iv) Failure to consider the number of complaints from the landowner and other businesses, which would have alerted this Claimant to the fact that their ‘Pay and Display / ANPR' and confusing signage was not being seen and/or understood by all genuine patrons and was therefore a wholly inappropriate method of data capture, which was unreliable at best and negligent (or even deliberately misleading) at worst, being the main cause of unfair parking charges against Evans Cycles patrons, and

v) Failure to prominently inform a driver in large lettering on clear signage, of the purpose of the ANPR system and the Pay & Display system and how the data captured on both would be used, and

vi) Lack of the 'Privacy Notice' required to deliver mandatory information about an individual's right of subject access, under the DPA. At no point has the Defendant been advised how to apply for, and what a data subject's rights are, to obtain all images and data held via a Subject Access Request from the Claimant.

9. This Claimant has therefore failed to meet its legal obligations and has breached principle 1 (at least) of the DPA, as well as the BPA Code of Practice.


[STRIKE]Unlawful conduct/data use and breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015[/STRIKE]
10. In a similar instance of DPA failure by excessive and inappropriate use of ANPR cameras - confirmed on this Claimant's Trade Body (BPA) website in a 2013 article urging its members to comply - Hertfordshire Constabulary was issued with an enforcement notice. The force were ordered to stop processing people's information via ANPR until they could comply. The Information Commissioner ruled that the collection of the information was specifically illegal; breaching principle one of the DPA.

[STRIKE]11. The Court's attention will be drawn to the case of Andre Agassi v S Robinson (HM Inspector of Taxes). Whilst not wholly aligned to the issues in this case, it is on all fours with the above point, because of the principle it extols that no one should profit from their unlawful conduct. Paragraph 20 of the Transcript of that case states: ''It is common ground that, whatever costs may be recoverable by a litigant in respect of professional services such as those provided by Tenon to the appellant, they cannot include the cost of any activities which are unlawful''. Paragraph 28 continues - ''...cannot on any view recover the cost of activities performed by Tenon which it was not lawful for them to perform.'' [/STRIKE]

[STRIKE]11.1. Further, in RTA (Business Consultants) Limited v Bracewell [2015] EWHC 630 (QB) (12 March 2015), at paragraph 34 the Judge discusses the relevance of the public law principle going back well over 200 years, that no man should profit from his crime; it is submitted that this is particularly relevant in this action. The Judge cited Lord Mansfield CJ to explain that: ''The principle of public policy is this; ex dolo malo non oritur actio. No Court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act. If [...] the cause of action appears to arise ex turpi causa, or the transgression of a positive law of this country, there the Court says he has no right to be assisted. It is upon that ground the Court goes; not for the sake of the defendant, but because they will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff.''
[/STRIKE]
[STRIKE]12. Even if there was a purported contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, it was illegal at its formation because it was incapable of being created without an illegal act (due to non-compliance with the ICO requirements at the outset, before enforcement started using ANPR systems at this site).[/STRIKE]

[STRIKE]12.1. Where a contract is illegal when formed, neither party will acquire rights under that contract, regardless of whether or not there was an intention to break the law; the contract will be void and treated as if it had never been entered into. As such, the asserted contract cannot be enforced.[/STRIKE]

[STRIKE]12.2. To add weight, the Defendant also cites from ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1338. Whilst the facts of that case differ, due to the arguments between the two commercial parties, the Judge's comments at paragraph 29 of the Transcript of Somerfield are of importance, where he discussed ParkingEye's misleading letters to consumers, whereby they had committed the tort of deceit. : ''At common law, historically, a distinction has been drawn between cases where the guilty party intended from the time of entering the contract unlawfully and cases where the intention to perform unlawfully was only made subsequently''. Laws LJ, in Somerfield, concluded that ParkingEye did not set out to deceive consumers before they signed the contract with Somerfield, so the contract was upheld in that case.[/STRIKE]

[STRIKE]12.2.1. Differently in this case, it is asserted that the Claimant did deliberately or negligently break the DPA. Being a BPA member with access to a wealth of ICO and DVLA-led data compliance information, relevant articles, compliance events and specific parking & DPA related legal advice for members, and given that this Claimant has its own in-house Legal Team and solicitors, it cannot justify nor plead ignorance to excuse their conduct in failing to meet their legal obligations both before enforcement and by way of regular evaluations to avoid just this sort of data abuse.[/STRIKE]

[STRIKE]12.2.2. At paragraphs 65-74 of the Somerfield transcript, Laws LJ set out three factors which need to be considered in a defence of illegality. The Defendant submits that the key issues in this action are that:

(i) the commission of an illegal wrong being present at the time of entering the contract means that the Claimant will not be able to enforce the contract.

(ii) the illegality is central to the contract and is not merely a minor aspect, thus it should not be held to be too remote so as to render the contract enforceable.

(iii) the nature of the illegality: in this case it was a breach of legal obligations regarding data, and not merely a civil tort as in Somerfield. The gravity of the illegality is therefore far greater.[/STRIKE]

[STRIKE]13. The Defendant avers that a breach of the DPA and failure to comply with ICO rules regarding data captured by ANPR, also transgresses the tests of fairness and transparency of consumer contracts, as set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (enacted after the final hearing in Beavis and not considered in that case). [/STRIKE]

[STRIKE]13.1[/STRIKE] 11. The excessive, inappropriate and unjustified use of ANPR alongside a hidden Pay & Display system [STRIKE]by this claimant[/STRIKE] is both unfair and lacking in transparency for an average consumer relying upon the large lettering offering free parking. As such, this claim must fail.

12. 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 in the court in their own name. Even if they hold such authority, the Claimant is put to strict proof that this includes litigation against patrons who stay less than 30 minutes.


Unconscionable and unrecoverable inflation of the 'parking charge'

13. This claim inflates the total to an eye-watering £xxx.xx, in a clear attempt at double recovery. The Defendant trusts that the presiding Judge will recognise this wholly unreasonable conduct as a gross abuse of process and may consider using the court's case management powers to strike the claim out of the court's own volition.

13.1. The acid test is whether the conduct permits of a reasonable explanation, but the Defendant avers it cannot.

13.2. Not only are such costs not permitted (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 & paste Britannia robo-claims at all. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent by legally qualified staff on preparing a claim in a legal capacity.

13.3. 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. It is also a fact that debt collection agencies act on a no-win-no-fee basis for parking operators, so no such costs have been incurred in truth. Thus, there can be no 'damages' to pile on top of any parking charge claim, and the Claimant knows this, as do their solicitors. The Defendant asks that the Court takes judicial notice of this repeated abuse of consumers rights and remedies, arising from BW Legal clients artificially inflating their robo-claims, which are filed in tens of thousands, per year.

[STRIKE][STRIKE]14[/STRIKE] 12. In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported Solicitor's Costs of £50, which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant. [/STRIKE]

[STRIKE]14.1. Whilst £50 may be recoverable in an instance where a claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim, Britannia Parking Ltd have not expended any such sum in this case. This Claimant has a Legal Team with salaried in-house Solicitors and it files hundreds of similar 'cut & paste' robo-claims per month, not incurring any legal cost per case. I put the Claimant to strict proof to the contrary because the in-house Solicitors cannot possibly be believed to be paid in the millions per annum for their services.[/STRIKE]

[STRIKE]15. The added 'legal' cost is in fact an artificially invented figure, which represents a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules and achieve double recovery.[/STRIKE]

[STRIKE]15.1. Similarly, in Somerfield (above) a £75 parking charge was not held to be a penalty but a sum mentioned in the harassing letters of double that amount, almost certainly would be.[/STRIKE]

14. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

I confirm that the facts in this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

JRL_2

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I have crossed some parts out of that template that I now think are too wordy:

Thank you, thank you so so much, this is incredible - I've followed all instructions and will now submit my latest defence with thos updates to the E-Mail address posted above following those instructions also.

I will check MCOL to ensure it is marked defended in a few days time. I will then await the DQ that is sent direct from CCBC and refer to section 2 of the NEWBIES thread to understand how to fill this in.

Honestly, what you're doing here is incredible, giving less experienced people the chance to fight back, I'm very grateful.

Many thanks, - will keep this updated with latest happenings! Wish me luck

GebbyUK

I have exactly the same thing going on, so I'm following intently, I would like to know if you plan to make a counterclaim and if so on what basis ?

Umkomaas

GebbyUK wrote: »

I have exactly the same thing going on, so I'm following intently, I would like to know if you plan to make a counterclaim and if so on what basis ?

You need to have a very specific reason(s) for a counterclaim. Being general hissed off with the PPC for pursuing you won't cut it.

JRL_2

Umkomaas wrote: »

You need to have a very specific reason(s) for a counterclaim. Being general hissed off with the PPC for pursuing you won't cut it.

I've not counterclaimed, If it goes any further you have the opportunity to seek costs, not sure quite what that looks like, I've seen various figures bounded around like £19 per hour of time, people also trying to claim for the days off work for any court dates, but to be honest it doesn't fuss me, I'll find out as I go.

Sometimes it's just not worth the hassle, they're already losing money at this stage anyway.

JRL_2

Hi All,

I logged into MCOL this afternoon and in the Claim history box it says the following:

"A claim was issued against you on 28/01/2019

Your defence was received on 01/02/2019"

So assume this is all I need to do for now and await further instructions - I'll check the newbies thread as well, thanks!

KeithP

Yes do that, and also re-read items 7 and 8 on the list in post #6 above.

Umkomaas

JRL_2 wrote: »

I've not counterclaimed, If it goes any further you have the opportunity to seek costs, not sure quite what that looks like, I've seen various figures bounded around like £19 per hour of time, people also trying to claim for the days off work for any court dates, but to be honest it doesn't fuss me, I'll find out as I go.

Sometimes it's just not worth the hassle, they're already losing money at this stage anyway.

Sorry, I missed your response at the end of last week.

Provided you win your case you would be entitled to up to £95 towards half a day's pay/loss of annual leave (take pay slips as proof), travel costs at 45p per mile and whatever your parking charge was for the day of hearing.

Ordinarily, the £19ph litigant in person rate is awarded if the claimant has been 'unreasonable' (technical term, not just having been a PITA to you), but it is a high bar. Some judges have awarded a couple of hours worth where there's clearly been a lot of work put in by the defendant. But no one is going to retire on it!