We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
BW Legal/Britannia Defence written
awhite6889
Posts: 28 Forumite
Hi all,
Really appreciate all your hard work helping us all out on here I have attached a summary of my case and my defence below.
I have already submitted my AOS of today
Summary of case:
1. Parked in a "university Car park" was not clear at all it was attached to the uni. You could easily access from a separate road and did not go through any University gates etc.
2. There were no signs explaining that it was a uni car park nor that you could not park there.
3. It was a gravelled piece of land and could did not have marked out parking spaces.
Please see defence below:
************************************************************
Issue Date of Claim: 28/01/19
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: CXXXXXX
BETWEEN:
BRITANNIA PARKING (Claimant)
-and-
XXXX XXXXXX (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts of the matter are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was allegedly parked on a piece of land unlawfully. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim consists of a relatively small number of poorly marked ‘private land’ parking spaces located amongst those forming a much larger University car park. There is little to no signage in this smaller car park and therefore little clarity as to whether a student may park there. In light of this there can be no contract construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem principle.
3. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
4. As the PCN was issued almost 2 years ago the defendant cannot ascertain who the driver was on the day in question and the defendant states that there was more than one person insured on the car at the time.
5. Harassment and distress.
The Claimant's Litigation department's continued contact and demands for money have represented a significant nuisance that is continuing to affect the Defendant's peace of mind and that of the Defendant's family, causing anxiety and distraction in the Defendant's work and daily life. The Claimant's Litigation department is misleading the Defendant about the law and continue to pester with continuous phone calls pretending they want the Defendant to telephone them so that they can help "resolve the account" as if this is a proven debt.
6. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. 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.
7. 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. There is no signage on the route into the car park from the road and therefore at no point could the driver have seen signage. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
8. The parking charge terms and the sum itself was not prominent and no contract was agreed. As such the facts and circumstances of this case can be fully distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, and fails to avoid falling foul of the penalty rule, due to a lack of any possibility to argue a 'legitimate interest' excuse.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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 that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
Name XXX
Signature XXX
Date XXX
Really appreciate all your hard work helping us all out on here I have attached a summary of my case and my defence below.
I have already submitted my AOS of today
Summary of case:
1. Parked in a "university Car park" was not clear at all it was attached to the uni. You could easily access from a separate road and did not go through any University gates etc.
2. There were no signs explaining that it was a uni car park nor that you could not park there.
3. It was a gravelled piece of land and could did not have marked out parking spaces.
Please see defence below:
************************************************************
Issue Date of Claim: 28/01/19
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: CXXXXXX
BETWEEN:
BRITANNIA PARKING (Claimant)
-and-
XXXX XXXXXX (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts of the matter are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was allegedly parked on a piece of land unlawfully. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim consists of a relatively small number of poorly marked ‘private land’ parking spaces located amongst those forming a much larger University car park. There is little to no signage in this smaller car park and therefore little clarity as to whether a student may park there. In light of this there can be no contract construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem principle.
3. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
4. As the PCN was issued almost 2 years ago the defendant cannot ascertain who the driver was on the day in question and the defendant states that there was more than one person insured on the car at the time.
5. Harassment and distress.
The Claimant's Litigation department's continued contact and demands for money have represented a significant nuisance that is continuing to affect the Defendant's peace of mind and that of the Defendant's family, causing anxiety and distraction in the Defendant's work and daily life. The Claimant's Litigation department is misleading the Defendant about the law and continue to pester with continuous phone calls pretending they want the Defendant to telephone them so that they can help "resolve the account" as if this is a proven debt.
6. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. 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.
7. 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. There is no signage on the route into the car park from the road and therefore at no point could the driver have seen signage. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
8. The parking charge terms and the sum itself was not prominent and no contract was agreed. As such the facts and circumstances of this case can be fully distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, and fails to avoid falling foul of the penalty rule, due to a lack of any possibility to argue a 'legitimate interest' excuse.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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 that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
Name XXX
Signature XXX
Date XXX
0
Comments
-
With a Claim Issue Date of 28th January, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 4th March 2019 to file your Defence.awhite6889 wrote: »Issue Date of Claim: 28/01/19
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.
- Sign it and date it.
- Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
- Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
- 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'.
- Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
- Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
- 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.
0 - Sign it and date it.
-
Bump - can anyone have a scan of my defence please and suggest any additions if necessary.
Thanks0 -
awhite6889 wrote: »Bump - can anyone have a scan of my defence please and suggest any additions if necessary.
Thanks
Looks very good to me - concise and to the point.
The wording seems familiar, I'm sure I've seen that before somewhere ...
I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 57, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.0 -
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.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
I've received an 11 page document from BW legal addressing each point of my defence and their argument against it.
Is this normal?0 -
Yes, see bargepole's summary of what to expect. That's just a reply to defence.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
awhite6889 wrote: »I've received an 11 page document from BW legal addressing each point of my defence and their argument against it.
Is this normal?
I received a 79 page pack from Parking Eye as 'Reply to Defence' recently which contained copies of all previous correspondence and summaries (possibly) of every single parking court case where the PPC won! I am eligible to claim back more in costs than you if both of ours go to hearing :rotfl:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards