Claim form - bw legal/brittania

Elsthemat

Good Morning all,

I've read a few posts, the sticky etc and just wanted some advice for my defence.
I have completed the AoS but due to being away i have only just done this today, I received the forms in the posts on the 22 Jan. So i think i only have another 2 weeks from today possibly (?) to get in the defence.

Bit of background...
The driver went to meet a friend at the Chiquitos/Frankie and Benny's restaurant, didn't pay for parking, unknown reasons. PCN contravention dates back to 3rd of March 2016 received the PCN in post on 6th April 2016. The PCN was appealed but got rejected, this didn't get taken to POPLA :doh: Ignored all debt collectors letters and havent heard anything since until I got a letter from BW Legal in November.

I asked for a SAR, this had my original appeal and the response, i did base my original appeal on the fact they had sent me a PCN after 32 days and said that it was to of been sent within 14 days, I got a response back in short, saying they had 35 days to send me a PCN as they were not relying on POFA 2012 and that where no driver details have been given the liability lies with the keeper. I'm not sure if what they have said is correct or not?

Regardless, I'm at the defence stage and although i have seen someone post here regarding the fact the driver hadn't paid in their case either, I'm not sure how i stand with this? The SAR was basic, literally had the appeal, Brittania's response, The original PCN and the Final reminder. What grounds do i have a for the defence? I'm at a bit of a loss.

Thanks for reading

KeithP

Hi and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

The_Deep

as they were not relying on POFA 2012 and that where no driver details have been given the liability lies with the keeper.

No, there is no keeper liability in non POFA charges. They have to prove OTBOP that the keeper was driver or they will lose the claim.

The whole industry is a scam, relying on threats of court, and the public's ignorance of the Law, A bill is currently before parliament which will regulate the scammers, many of whom are ex-clampers.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Second Reading in the Lords this month, and, with a fair wind, will l become Law later this year..

All five readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 7-8 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

Elsthemat

Issue date is 22 Jan 2019

Elsthemat

The Deep

I did think this was the case, I'm not sure why it wasn't picked up at the time of the appeal!

KeithP

Elsthemat wrote: »

Issue date is 22 Jan 2019

With a Claim Issue Date of 22nd January, you have until Monday 11th February to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox link from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

Having done the Acknowledgement of Service, you then have until 4pm on Monday 25th February 2019 to file your Defence.

That's three weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Elsthemat

Keith,

Being that the keeper is being pursued for non-payment of a valid parking ticket. What grounds do i have to defend on?

Can I just pick bits out other peoples defence's? Im happy to do this just need a bit of guidance of what i can/can't put in that would relate to my case?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Look at ANY other Britannia PDT machine defence (use those keywords in ADVANCED search, and change to SHOW RESULTS AS POSTS).

We have what feels like hundreds of BW Legal/Britannia threads right now, re PCNs from 2016/17, all pretty much exactly the same.

The only difference is, if the D knows they were not driving then they should put in a denial of being the driver, near the top (you will see this in some defences).

Otherwise (unless, early doors in 2016, they sent a weak appeal blabbing about being the driver, in which case they are stuck with that stance) the D usually says near the start of the defence that they can't be sure due to the passage of time and the fact more than one person was insured on (or other friends/family with fully comp insurance) could have used that car for a shopping trip at the material time.

No new threads are even needed about these cases until a defence is ready...

It's why, just last week, I added a paragraph to the NEWBIES thread begging for no new 'I have a court claim, what do I do?' BW Legal Britannia threads except to show us defences and beyond...!

They are all exactly the same, so much so, you won't be taking 'bits and bats' from someone's defence - you could pretty much copy a similar one about a PDT machine, hence the search terms. You will find one almost ready to go, I bet.

We are of course happy to help you through from defence, to WS, to hearing and you can certainly continue this thread with a defence for us to comment on. I am merely desperate to stop us drowning in 'I have a claim...help!' (pre defence) threads.

Umkomaas

As you will see from the first few pages of the forum, there is an onslaught by BWL on behalf of Britannia (and a few other hitherto court-shy PPCs) which is being conducted on an industrial scale - roboclaims.

You are caught in a one-way traffic flow where you must fight or pay - there is no longer a safe 'do nothing' option.

1. Pay now, it costs you exactly what they are currently demanding.
2. Ignore it, a 'judgment in default' will inevitably follow for at least what they want - maybe with even more costs added; continue to ignore that, you're getting a CCJ with credit trashing consequences for 6 years.
3. Defend, yet lose in court, the cost award is likely to be noticeably less than their current demand ~£175.
4. Defend, and win in court, you owe them nothing and you could claim up to £95 for half a day's pay/loss of annual leave, plus travel costs @45p per mile, plus your parking cost for the day.

Your least costly option has to be 3, with hopefully a win as per 4.

But BWL/Britannia cannot physically take everyone to court, and there is evidence to show that with a well constructed defence, BWL can come along with a reduced 'offer to settle', which if refused, becomes a discontinuation. We can't give you guarantees on that, but as you have little choice other than to defend (if you don't want to pay), you need to give this your very best shot.

Whether you have a good defendable case to argue, you will need to read other similar cases at the defence (or beyond) stage and learn from those.

Elsthemat

Coupon-mad, Umkomaas,

Thank you for your advice! Will get some reading in and I'll be back with,hopefully, a decent enough defence.

Thanks again!

Elsthemat

Hi all,

I found a similar case to mine (i think anyway) I wondered if you could take a look at all. This is what i have so far, i have read that its best to keep the defence to one page so didn't want to over load. Also i wasn't sure what should be written about PDT machines?

In The County Court

Claim No:

Between

xxxx (Claimant)

-and-

xxxx (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The particulars of the claim, state the legal basis is brought against the Defendant for ‘breach of the terms and conditions of the car park’ by the driver. 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. when parking at xxx car park on xxx.

2.1. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £85 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant; was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle; xxx. These assertions 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. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle. ‘Keeper liability’ under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) is dependent upon full compliance with that Act. It is submitted that the Claimant’s Parking Charge Notice and/or Notice to Keeper failed to comply with the statutory wording and/or deadlines set by the POFA. Any non-compliance voids any right to ‘keeper liability’.

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.

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land under the correct address, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

7. In addition to the original PCN penalty, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added 'costs' of £60. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs.

8. The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye 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.

9. The Claimant may try to rely on Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1453.. However the vehicle is not registered to the Defendant as a company vehicle and there is no Employer liability holding the Defendant liable for the actions of the Driver.

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.

Statement of Truth:

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


February 2019