Claim Form Received

Legohead26

I know there has been hundreds of questions relating to BW Legal and their robo claims from a couple of years ago, so I'll keep this short and sweet.

Quick overview. My vehicle allegedly overstayed on a free car park, received an NTK 31 days later, also with no photo evidence, it only stated an 'observed from' and 'observed to' for the time frame.

Sent off a SAR to Britannia and the only 'evidence' included were 3 photos all time stamped at the 'observed to' time. Also taken by a man with a camera, not ANPR as the signs suggest.

If I was to use this as a defence point - that there's no evidence my vehicle was parked longer than the time permitted, is there a chance that they could have more photo evidence and not have provided this following my data request? Or is it likely that they're hanging on by a very fine thread?

Coupon-mad

My vehicle allegedly overstayed on a free car park, received an NTK 31 days later, also with no photo evidence, it only stated an 'observed from' and 'observed to' for the time frame.

Sent off a SAR to Britannia and the only 'evidence' included were 3 photos all time stamped at the 'observed to' time.

They have no chance. No hope at all!

I have seen this myself in a PCN issued to a friend of my daughter's, in a Waitrose car park, where Britannia's only photos were timed at, say, 3pm, and the allegation was that the car had been there since the morning and had overstayed.

I nearly fell off my chair laughing and they cancelled as soon as the above was pointed out in an appeal. Ludicrous lack of evidence of 'overstay'!

So deny the overstay. Put them to strict proof, as part of your defence.

Show us your draft.

Legohead26

Ah so that will be all the photos they have! I thought it was ridiculous when I received it, which is why I questioned it!

In the process of drafting my defence, I've only received the LBC but the 30 days is up now, judging by everyone else's experience with BW the court forms are imminent.

Will get my draft posted once I've finished and have actually received the forms!

Thank you coupon-mad ��

The_Deep

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.

Legohead26

Hoping to get some advice on my defence draft.

Are paras 3 & 4 contradictory? I've gone back and forth with it.

The reason behind including para 6 - they've obtained my phone number following a credit search (which I don't believe is justified for a PCN). Something i want to go into detail with in my WS.

If they can obtain my phone number, you'd think that after a change of address, which I also confirmed during the SAR process, that they'd send the Claim Form to the correct address. But they still sent it to my old address, probably in hope of a default judgement.

Anyway, below is my draft. Thoughts much appreciated

In The County Court


Claim No: XXXXXXX

Between


Britannia Parking Group (Claimant)

-and-

XXX (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at XXXX.

2. The allegation appears to be based on a parking charge notice ('PCN') that was issued alleging the vehicle was 'parked longer than the maximum time permitted' on the material date.

3. The Defendant submits the vehicle in question did not exceed the time permitted whilst parked, and for this the Claimant is put to strict proof of any breach and their decision-making in deciding to issue a PCN and why.

4. Under schedule 4, Section 4(2) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘POFA’), the Claimant can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle where specific conditions have been met. It is submitted that the Claimant has failed to fulfil the conditions through failure to serve a compliant ‘Notice to Keeper’ (‘NTK’) in accordance with Section 9(5).

5. 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.

6. The Claimant has spent 2 years harassing the Defendant with ever increasing and intimidating demands pursuing this baseless charge, sending debt collector letters and repeated phone calls causing the Defendant significant distress, despite having no basis for the charge.

6.1. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and aggressive. As such, the Defendant is keeping note of their wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

7. In addition to the original PCN penalty, or which liability is denied, the Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added ‘costs’ of £60, which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.

7.1. The £60 was first added to the initial ‘PCN’ charge and then later as ‘initial legal costs’ and further 'debt recovery costs' in the pre-action exchange of letters (not part of any terms on signage and cannot be added, not least because it was never expended). Suddenly in the Particulars there is also a second add-on for purported 'legal representative costs of £50' on top of the vague £60, artificially hiking the sum to £250.00. This would be more than double recovery, being vague and disingenuous and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.

7.2. 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 PPS robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities.

7.2.1. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.

8. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim 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.

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on the Claim Form?

Did it come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?

Legohead26

The issue date is 27th Feb, AoS completed on MCOL. If I worked it out right it gives me til 1st April.

It is from Northampton county court business centre

KeithP

Legohead26 wrote: »

The issue date is 27th Feb, AoS completed on MCOL. If I worked it out right it gives me til 1st April.

It is from Northampton county court business centre

You are right with the dates, but maybe there is something useful here...


With a Claim Issue Date of 27th February, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 1st April 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over 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.

Legohead26

Thank you KeithP!

Is there anyone who can offer any words of advice on my defence draft?

Le_Kirk

Looks good, I have seen all those arguments used in defences on here. Not sure if you need evidence such as you have included in your point 7.2, perhaps that should be kept back for Witness Statement and evidence stage. However you have time to wait for others to comment before submitting your defence before 1st April. Just bump your post every couple of days if you don't get a response. Forum is busy and it is the week-end.

Legohead26

Thank you Le_Kirk, I've taken out these points

I did wonder if my post had got lost among so many, I'll make sure to revisit every few days!

I've amended my defence, and included a point in regards to Britannia only imposing restrictions (I believe to be) 1 month prior.

Any further opinions or advice would be much appreciated!

In The County Court


Claim No: XXXXXXX

Between


Britannia Parking Group (Claimant)

-and-

XXX (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at XXXX.

2. The allegation appears to be based on a parking charge notice ('PCN') that was issued alleging the vehicle was 'parked longer than the maximum time permitted' on the material date.

3. The Defendant submits the vehicle in question did not exceed the time permitted whilst parked, and for this the Claimant is put to strict proof of any breach and their decision-making in deciding to issue a PCN and why.

4. 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.

5. Prior to the allegation, Britannia Parking Group had only recently placed their signage within the car park creating new terms and conditions for motorists, of which impose liability where none previously existed as an unrestricted car park. It is contended that the Claimant failed to alert regular visitors to the site of such changes, in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice 18.11.

6. Under schedule 4, Section 4(2) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘POFA’), the Claimant can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle where specific conditions have been met. It is submitted that the Claimant has failed to fulfil the conditions through failure to serve a compliant ‘Notice to Keeper’ (‘NTK’) in accordance with Section 9(5).

7. The Claimant has spent 2 years harassing the Defendant with ever increasing and intimidating demands pursuing this baseless charge, sending debt collector letters and repeated phone calls causing the Defendant significant distress, despite having no basis for the charge.

7.1. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and aggressive. Defendant’s As such, the Defendant is keeping note of their wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

8. In addition to the original PCN penalty, of which liability is denied, the Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added ‘costs’ of £60, which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.

8.1. The £60 was first added to the initial ‘PCN’ charge and then later as ‘initial legal costs’ and further 'debt recovery costs' in the pre-action exchange of letters (not part of any terms on signage and cannot be added, not least because it was never expended). Suddenly in the Particulars there is also a second add-on for purported 'legal representative costs of £50' on top of the vague £60, artificially hiking the sum to £250.00. This would be more than double recovery, being vague and disingenuous and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.

9. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim 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.