Claim Form Received

Legohead26

Hoping for any advice on my defence posted above before I submit this week

Legohead26

one last bump in hope of any opinions before submitting my defence above

KeithP

Yes, before your latest bump, this thread was on page eighteen.

By this time tomorrow it could easily be on page five.

You need to keep it in view on this very busy forum for comments.

Legohead26

I know it's hard for you all to keep up to date with so many posts at the minute, I don't want to keep pestering!

I will have to submit this tomorrow anyway due to a lovely week of night shifts.

Any advice or opinions beforehand would be much appreciated

Coupon-mad

Apart from the rogue word on the end of this sentence, it looks good to go:

7.1. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and aggressive. Defendant’s

Le_Kirk

You might want to work this into your point about claiming the additional £60: -

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. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

Also: -

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, [STRIKE]of [/STRIKE]which impose liability where none previously existed as an unrestricted car park.

Legohead26

Thank you all for the help!

Points amended and now submitted.

I'll come back with any updates as and when

Legohead26

Hey guys, just looking for some advice for my WS after I've read through avem1's post. They won their case based on the claim being brought under the wrong legal entity of 'britannia parking limited' which is a dormant company.

I've just gone through every letter I've received, and everything sent to me was under the trading name 'britannia parking limited' up until December 2018. They then only corrected this to 'britannia parking group limited' from the claim form onwards.

Based on this I expect the contract with the landowner would have been with the dormant company and not the claimant. I can't be sure though, as when I requested the contract in my data request they failed to provide it.

Is this something I can work into my WS when I hadn't included it in my defence? Or am I too late?

Umkomaas

The SAR was never going to elicit the contract from them. A SAR is about personal data held about you and the VRM of your vehicle.

However, you can ask for it as part of the court process to help 'narrow the issues', so write to BWL and ask for it. You might not get it, but it's a further point to put to the Judge in evidencing their unreasonableness.

If you've not included the contractual issue in your defence, then technically you can't introduce new evidence without stumping up £255 for the pleasure. So don't show it as a separate and brand new issue in your WS. Rather introduce it gently into the flow of the WS and hopefully it won't be too noticeable as new evidence.

Le_Kirk

On the claim form you received from Northampton CCBC, what was the name of the claimant? Was it Britannia or BWL?