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!
Britannia/BW Legal Claim Form
jackpot_spaniel
Posts: 30 Forumite
Hi all
I've got a Claim Form from Northampton, AOS completed.
Small ANPR controlled 20 minute free stay car park. Overstay of around 18 minutes, based on ANPR pictures with timestamps.
I'm being pursued as keeper, the driver hasn't been identified.
Regrettably I ignored the PCN, and never appealed – I now realise the error of my ways. The main reasons for ignoring were frustration, some misinformation regarding private parking tickets and POPLA, and the fact that I was moving house at the time due to a new job. I have no idea if it’s worth mentioning the latter reason for ignoring the PCN in a Witness Statement?
First draft of my defence below:
---
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM NO. X
BETWEEN
BRITANNIA PARKING GROUP LIMITED (Claimant)
-and-
X (Defendant)
---
DEFENCE
---
1 The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2 The facts are that the vehicle, registration X, of which the Defendant is the Registered Keeper, was within the car park for a total of X minutes and X seconds.
3 In spite of the Defendant’s request, the Claimant has failed to supply details of the signage that was in place at the time of the alleged contravention, which, according to the Claimant, details the terms and conditions of the car park. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 16.4 and Civil Practice Direction 16, paragraph 7.3. Furthermore, the Letter of Claim sent on behalf of the Claimant did not include this information, which is a clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. The Defendant has it on good authority that the signage at the car park was changed following the alleged contravention. As such, the current signage at the car park is not applicable to the Claim. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of the signage that was in place at the time of the alleged contravention.
4 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. - can I say this?
5 As a British Parking Association (BPA) member and approved operator, the Claimant must comply with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP), of which Version 6 was in force at the time of the alleged contravention. The Defendant notes the following points in relation to the BPA CoP, which was considered effectively ‘regulation’ by Judges at the Supreme Court.
5.1 The BPA CoP Section 13 requires the Claimant to allow two ‘grace periods’ – one reasonable period at the beginning of the parking period, and a minimum of 10 minutes at the end of the parking period. The Defendant attests that if the period of free parking was indeed 20 minutes, then the X minute and X second overstay easily falls within the required grace periods. As such, the Claim is in breach of the BPA CoP.
5.2 The BPA CoP Section 18.2 requires the Claimant to have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the car park, which must follow some minimum general principles. Having inspected the site of the alleged contravention, the Defendant notes that the Claimant’s current entrance signage is positioned such that it cannot be read by drivers as they enter the car park. It is assumed that the entrance signage in place at the time of the alleged contravention would have been similar at best, and puts the Claimant to strict proof. As such, the Claimant is in breach of the BPA CoP, and it is denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
5.3 The BPA CoP Sections 18.3 and 18.4 require the Claimant to have signage stating the specific parking terms throughout the car park. The Defendant has it on good authority that the signage in place at the time of the alleged contravention was in breach of these requirements, and puts the Claimant to strict proof of the signage that was present.
5.4 The BPA CoP Section 21.1 requires the Claimant to have signs notifying drivers that Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera technology is in use at the car park, and what the captured data will be used for. The Defendant has it on good authority that no such signs were in place at the time of the alleged contravention, and puts the Claimant to strict proof. As such, the Claimant is in breach of the BPA CoP.
6 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.
7 The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, 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 fee, which has been described as “contractual costs”, “legal costs” and a “debt recovery instruction fee” on separate occasions. The claim also includes a separate £50 “legal representative’s cost”. This appears to be an attempt at double recovery. Not only are such costs not permitted by 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 and paste robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities.
8 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.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
Thanks
I've got a Claim Form from Northampton, AOS completed.
Small ANPR controlled 20 minute free stay car park. Overstay of around 18 minutes, based on ANPR pictures with timestamps.
I'm being pursued as keeper, the driver hasn't been identified.
Regrettably I ignored the PCN, and never appealed – I now realise the error of my ways. The main reasons for ignoring were frustration, some misinformation regarding private parking tickets and POPLA, and the fact that I was moving house at the time due to a new job. I have no idea if it’s worth mentioning the latter reason for ignoring the PCN in a Witness Statement?
First draft of my defence below:
---
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM NO. X
BETWEEN
BRITANNIA PARKING GROUP LIMITED (Claimant)
-and-
X (Defendant)
---
DEFENCE
---
1 The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2 The facts are that the vehicle, registration X, of which the Defendant is the Registered Keeper, was within the car park for a total of X minutes and X seconds.
3 In spite of the Defendant’s request, the Claimant has failed to supply details of the signage that was in place at the time of the alleged contravention, which, according to the Claimant, details the terms and conditions of the car park. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 16.4 and Civil Practice Direction 16, paragraph 7.3. Furthermore, the Letter of Claim sent on behalf of the Claimant did not include this information, which is a clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. The Defendant has it on good authority that the signage at the car park was changed following the alleged contravention. As such, the current signage at the car park is not applicable to the Claim. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of the signage that was in place at the time of the alleged contravention.
4 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. - can I say this?
5 As a British Parking Association (BPA) member and approved operator, the Claimant must comply with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP), of which Version 6 was in force at the time of the alleged contravention. The Defendant notes the following points in relation to the BPA CoP, which was considered effectively ‘regulation’ by Judges at the Supreme Court.
5.1 The BPA CoP Section 13 requires the Claimant to allow two ‘grace periods’ – one reasonable period at the beginning of the parking period, and a minimum of 10 minutes at the end of the parking period. The Defendant attests that if the period of free parking was indeed 20 minutes, then the X minute and X second overstay easily falls within the required grace periods. As such, the Claim is in breach of the BPA CoP.
5.2 The BPA CoP Section 18.2 requires the Claimant to have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the car park, which must follow some minimum general principles. Having inspected the site of the alleged contravention, the Defendant notes that the Claimant’s current entrance signage is positioned such that it cannot be read by drivers as they enter the car park. It is assumed that the entrance signage in place at the time of the alleged contravention would have been similar at best, and puts the Claimant to strict proof. As such, the Claimant is in breach of the BPA CoP, and it is denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
5.3 The BPA CoP Sections 18.3 and 18.4 require the Claimant to have signage stating the specific parking terms throughout the car park. The Defendant has it on good authority that the signage in place at the time of the alleged contravention was in breach of these requirements, and puts the Claimant to strict proof of the signage that was present.
5.4 The BPA CoP Section 21.1 requires the Claimant to have signs notifying drivers that Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera technology is in use at the car park, and what the captured data will be used for. The Defendant has it on good authority that no such signs were in place at the time of the alleged contravention, and puts the Claimant to strict proof. As such, the Claimant is in breach of the BPA CoP.
6 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.
7 The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, 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 fee, which has been described as “contractual costs”, “legal costs” and a “debt recovery instruction fee” on separate occasions. The claim also includes a separate £50 “legal representative’s cost”. This appears to be an attempt at double recovery. Not only are such costs not permitted by 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 and paste robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities.
8 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.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
Thanks
0
Comments
-
What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?
Did it come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?0 -
Hi Keith
Issue Date of the Claim Form is 15 February 2019.
Yes - County Court Business Centre in Northampton. Any particular relevance for that?
Thanks0 -
With a Claim Issue Date of 15th February, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 20th March 2019 to file your Defence.jackpot_spaniel wrote: »Issue Date of the Claim Form is 15 February 2019.
That's over a month 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.
-
Only to check you should be using MCOL to do the AOS, as usual (and as shown in the NEWBIES sticky thread second post) as opposed to the minority of paper-based claims.County Court Business Centre in Northampton. Any particular relevance for that?
But I see you have done the AOS, and shown us a defence - good!
The hearing will of course be at your local court, as explained in the sticky.
Yes, if it is your position that the signs were unlit and it was pitch black, for example.4 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. - can I say this?
Or that (truthfully) you drove in and returned (two visits under 20 mins each)?
Why did you overstay and did you not see the signs? Why not, that's what you need to explain.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 -
you have until 4pm on Wednesday 20th March 2019 to file your Defence
I'm out of the country 1-15 March. Is there any benefit to filing early? I don't want to receive anything whilst I'm away.Yes, if it is your position that the signs were unlit and it was pitch black, for example. Or that (truthfully) you dove in and returned (two visits under 20 mins each)?
Why did you overstay and did you not see the signs? Why not, that's what you need to explain.
I believe the sign consulted by the driver noted 20 minutes free stay, but did not note use of ANPR or detail the fine (requirement of BPA CoP/POFA). The driver was simply delayed, but did not see a parking attendant, so did not return to the vehicle.
Is there any benefit to keeping the driver unknown? Also, is it possible that the judge will ask who the driver is? I'm assuming I'd be required to answer them?
Thanks0 -
Then I would suggest that you fully prepare your Defence before you leave and then file it, as described above, upon your return.jackpot_spaniel wrote: »I'm out of the country 1-15 March. Is there any benefit to filing early? I don't want to receive anything whilst I'm away.
That's probably the only realistic way of avoiding anything arriving while you are away.0 -
Yes, if this is a PCN from 2016 or 2017, when Britannia didn't use POFA wording to hold keepers liable. Huge benefit, saying they can't hold a keeper liable outwith the POFA.Is there any benefit to keeping the driver unknown?
Yes, it's possible they might ask 'were you the driver'? It's only a problem if you think it was you...(DON'T tell us if it was) because then you would have to answer and then the POFA argument is gone.Also, is it possible that the judge will ask who the driver is?
Not a problem if it wasn't you!
If you have very little else as a defence, and it's an old non-POFA PCN (check the wording against para 9 of Schedule 4 - easy to do) you might even be best letting the case be heard on the papers and not in person, and mainly talking about the lack of evidence and lack of keeper liability.
Then you can't be asked.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 -
Yes, if this is a PCN from 2016 or 2017, when Britannia didn't use POFA wording to hold keepers liable.
The PCN is from 2017, but it notes "You are warned that if, after 28 days, the Parking Charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the Parking Charge from the registered keeper. This warning is given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of that act."you have until 4pm on Wednesday 20th March 2019 to file your Defence
I'm a bit confused, everywhere is saying 28 days after particulars of claim for filing of defence, which would be 15 March. Or is the Claim Form not the 'particulars of claim'?0 -
Where is 'everywhere'?jackpot_spaniel wrote: »I'm a bit confused, everywhere is saying 28 days after particulars of claim for filing of defence, which would be 15 March. Or is the Claim Form not the 'particulars of claim'?
This is fully explained in the Money Claim Online (MCOL) - User Guide.
On page 14 of that document it says:How long does the defendant have to respond to my claim?
The court will send out a claim pack to each defendant once the claim has been issued and allows 5 calendar days from the date of issue for the service of the claim. Therefore the 'date of service' is the 5th calendar day after issue. Please note, if you have served separate particulars of claim then this may affect the deemed date of service (as above).
The defendant has 14 calendar days from the 'date of service' to file a response. If the last day for filing the response falls on a day that the court is not open (i.e. a weekend or public holiday), the court will allow the next full working day for a response. The defendant can extend the time to respond to 28 calendar days by filing an acknowledgment of service (AOS).0 -
This is fully explained in the Money Claim Online (MCOL) - User Guide.
Thanks for the link - I was looking at the Rules & Practice Directions on the justice.gov.uk website.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards