Britannia/BW Legal Claim Form

jackpot_spaniel

Thanks to everyone who has helped guide me through this process, and a special shout-out to Coupon-mad who advised me to include that point in my Defence and Witness Statement!

beamerguy

jackpot_spaniel wrote: »

Thanks to everyone who has helped guide me through this process, and a special shout-out to Coupon-mad who advised me to include that point in my Defence and Witness Statement!

Well done:beer:, you won and once again BWLegal/Britannia LOST
That's a result

Redx

well done , a win is a win , whatever the reason, so up yours yet again Britannia and up yours B W LEGAL too

another one bites the dust !!

Coupon-mad

jackpot_spaniel wrote: »

It's a WIN! But not how I expected at all...

We basically debated the following point of my Witness Statement for two hours:

Section 9 of Schedule 4 of the POFA details the explicit requirements of a Notice to Keeper, including the timeline that must be given. Section 9(2)(f) requires the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to: “warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given…” However, the Claimant’s PCN notes that: “You are warned that if, after 28 days, the Parking Charge has not been paid in full…” Therefore, the Claimant’s PCN is not compliant with Section 9(2)(f) of the POFA, and misleads the consumer about the statutory timeline. Indeed, the Claimant notes within their PCN that their right to pursue the Keeper is “subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of” the POFA.

The judge approached it from many angles, but the overall decision was that the PCN was non-compliant with the specifics of the POFA, which clearly states "The notice must..."

Permission to appeal was denied by the judge, but I'll have to wait 28 days to see if Britannia do want to appeal it.

I was awarded my ordinary costs, but not the 'unreasonable' costs.

Happy weekend all!

Hooray, just read about this success! WELL DONE.

Reading court took 2 HOURS to debate a part of statute law that we sussed years ago!

:T

beamerguy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Hooray, just read about this success! WELL DONE.

Reading court took 2 HOURS to debate a part of statute law that we sussed years ago!

:T

It was the court in Slough as Reading was busy.

With the judge spending 2 hours over this, it's no wonder there is a delay every day

BWLegal however were zapped again and that's the main thing:rotfl:

Coupon-mad

Did you go and watch this one, beamerguy?