Received Britannia/BW County Court Business Centre Claim Form x4 [Defense Submitted]

the_invisible_man

Hi All,

[UPDATE 12/07/2019] 3 OUT OF 4 OF THE CLAIMS HAVE NOW BEEN STRUCK OUT [END UPDATE]

[UPDATE 28/06/2019] CLAIMANTS PARTICULARS RECEIVED FOR 2 CASES, 1 CASE HAS NOW BEEN STRUCK OUT AND THE LAST CASE HAS GONE QUIET [END UPDATE]
[NON DATED UPDATE]CASE HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO LOCAL COURT, COURT DATE NOT BEEN GIVEN AS OF YET[END OF NON DATED UPDATE]

[UPDATE 18/03/2019] DEFENSE NOW SUBMITTED [END UPDATE]

Would really appreciate some advise, have tried to follow the rules here and only post at the correct stage, so apologies if I haven't posted at the right time of the process, really appreciate everything everyone is doing in this forum to help out the little man.

I have received 4 separate claim forms [AOS Submitted 19 FEBRUARY 2019] from the county court business centre.

UPDATE 20/02/2019 AS REQUESTED BY COUPON-MAD R.E. CIRCUMSTANCES:
Details around the case: The person driving the vehicle used the car park as a regular place to park whilst at work on most likely around 150-200 occasions, the car park permits the person driving the vehicle to pay at any time up until 12pm the same day for the day in question and not there after.

The car park at the time of incursions was extremely poorly lit, so much so I would escort a colleague to make sure she got to her car safe.

There was signs present.
UPDATE END

All 4 claim forms are:
Claimant Britania,
Documents and payments to BW Legal.
Issue date 11 FEBRUARY 2019.
Court is in Northampton a 2 hours away.

I ignored these from the get go, perhaps due to misinformation bad advise I had received on pursuit.

I have detailed the claims below details omitted and taken out the particular sums to make it hopefully a little less traceable:
1.The Claiment's Claim is for the sum of £100.00 being moniees due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on XX/XX/XXXX (Issue Date) at XX:XX:XX at XXXXXXXXXX - XXXXX (ANPR)

The PCN relates to XXXXXXX under registration XXXX XXX.
The terms of the PCV allowed the Defendant 28 days from the Issue Date to pay the PCN, but the Defendant failed to do so. Despite demand having been made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.
The Claim also includes Statutory Intreset pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum a daily rate of 0.02 from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX being an amount of £XXXX

The Claimant also claims £60.00 contractual costs pursuant to PCN Terms and Conditions

Amount claimed: £XXXX
Court fee: £25.00
Legal representative's costs: £50.00
Total amount: £XXXX

2.The Claiment's Claim is for the sum of £100.00 being moniees due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on XX/XX/XXXX (Issue Date) at XX:XX:XX at XXXXXXXXXX - XXXXX (ANPR)

The PCN relates to XXXXXXX under registration XXXX XXX.
The terms of the PCV allowed the Defendant 28 days from the Issue Date to pay the PCN, but the Defendant failed to do so. Despite demand having been made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.
The Claim also includes Statutory Intreset pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum a daily rate of 0.02 from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX being an amount of £XXXX

The Claimant also claims £60.00 contractual costs pursuant to PCN Terms and Conditions

Amount claimed: £XXXX
Court fee: £25.00
Legal representative's costs: £50.00
Total amount: £XXXX

3.The Claiment's Claim is for the sum of £100.00 being moniees due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on XX/XX/XXXX (Issue Date) at XX:XX:XX at XXXXXXXXXX - XXXXX (ANPR)

The PCN relates to XXXXXXX under registration XXXX XXX.
The terms of the PCV allowed the Defendant 28 days from the Issue Date to pay the PCN, but the Defendant failed to do so. Despite demand having been made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.
The Claim also includes Statutory Intreset pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum a daily rate of 0.02 from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX being an amount of £XXXX

The Claimant also claims £60.00 contractual costs pursuant to PCN Terms and Conditions

Amount claimed: £XXXX
Court fee: £25.00
Legal representative's costs: £50.00
Total amount: £XXXX

4.The Claiment's Claim is for the sum of £100.00 being moniees due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on XX/XX/XXXX (Issue Date) at XX:XX:XX at XXXXXXXXXX - XXXXX (ANPR)

The PCN relates to XXXXXXX under registration XXXX XXX.
The terms of the PCV allowed the Defendant 28 days from the Issue Date to pay the PCN, but the Defendant failed to do so. Despite demand having been made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.
The Claim also includes Statutory Intreset pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum a daily rate of 0.02 from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX being an amount of £XXXX

The Claimant also claims £60.00 contractual costs pursuant to PCN Terms and Conditions

Amount claimed: £XXXX
Court fee: £25.00
Legal representative's costs: £50.00
Total amount: £XXXX

Have a few questions:
1. Is there any other information in the numbers that I should omit as I know they scour the forums?
2. Not sure if the driver has been identified, how would I tell this?
3. How do I work out when my defense is due?
4. Based on my draft defense below is there anything I need to change and/or remove/include, should I support any of this with photos etc if possible.
5. I can go into the situation around the events that created these, but did not want to indite myself?
6. Almost certain they did a credit check on my a while back, is this legal and should I include it as evidence?
7. Due to there being 4 is it worth adding into my defense that I acknowledge that the court is pressed for time and should do 1 of these as a test case for the other 3, if so how do I include this in my defense?

Draft Defense Below:

---

In The County Court

Claim No:

Between

xxxx (Claimant)

-and-

xxxx (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The particulars of the claim, state the legal basis is brought against the Defendant for ‘breach of the terms and conditions of the car park’ by the driver. 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. when parking at xxx car park on xxx.

2.1. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant; was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle; xxx. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.

4. 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.

5. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle. ‘Keeper liability’ under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) is dependent upon full compliance with that Act. It is submitted that the Claimant’s Parking Charge Notice and/or Notice to Keeper failed to comply with the statutory wording and/or deadlines set by the POFA. Any non-compliance voids any right to ‘keeper liability’.

6. 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.

6.1 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.

6.2 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.

6.3 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.

[UPDATED 15-03-19]
7. This Claimant uses ANPR camera systems to process data but fails to comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information'. This Code confirms that it applies to ANPR systems, and that the private sector is required to follow this code to meet its legal obligations as a data processor. Members of the British Parking Association AOS are required to comply fully with the DPA, as a pre-requisite of being able to use the DVLA KADOE system and in order to enforce parking charges on private land. The Claimant's failures to comply include, but are not limited to:

i) Lack of an initial privacy impact assessment, and

ii) Lack of an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, considering concepts that would impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle, and

iii) Failure to regularly evaluate whether it was necessary and proportionate to continue using ANPR at all times/days across the site, as opposed to a less privacy-intrusive method of parking enforcement (such as 'light touch' enforcement only at busy times, or manning the car park with a warden in order to consider the needs of genuine shoppers and taking into account the prevailing conditions at the site on any given day), and

iv) Failure to prominently inform a driver in large lettering on clear signage, of the purpose of the ANPR system and how the data would be used, and

v) Lack of the 'Privacy Notice' required to deliver mandatory information about an individual's right of subject access, under the Data Protection Act (DPA). At no point has the Defendant been advised how to apply for a Subject Access Request, what that is, nor informed of the legal right to obtain all relevant data held.
[UPDATED END]

8. The Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land under the correct address, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

9. The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. However, with no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant is fully aware that their claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail.

UPDATE 20/02/2019 AS REQUESTED BY COUPON-MAD R.E. MULTIPLE CASE FILINGS:
10. The Claimant has made no checks, carried out no due diligence to avoid duplicate claims based on mirror image facts. State that this is an abuse of process and wholly vexatious and unreasonable conduct, when considered together with their failure to provide full details with the pre-action protocol (PAP) paperwork and failure to comply with the 2017 PAP for Debt Claims, and 4 x particulars of claim that are so sparse by way of details of the alleged breach/terms/contract, as to be embarrassing
UPDATE END
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 the facts contained in this Defence are true.
xxxx

KeithP

the_invisible_man wrote: »

I have received 4 separate claim forms [AOS Submitted 19 FEBRUARY 2019] from the county court business centre.

All 4 claim forms are:
Claimant Britania,
Documents and payments to BW Legal.
Issue date 11 FEBRUARY 2019.
Court is in Northampton a 2 hours away.

You will never be going to Northampton. Later in the process you get to choose your local County Court.


With a Claim Issue Date of 11th February, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 18th March 2019 to file your Defence.

That's nearly 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.
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.

onlyfoolsandparking

Others will advise on your defence but I would edit your VRN out of your post, the scammers read this site and can use any info they gain here against you.


You need to carry on reading the Court procedure help in the NEWBIES thread, plenty of info there, also when you say Northampton 2 hours away, you are not assuming you would have to attend there I hope, that place is just the bulk centre for service, any Court case you may attend will be at YOUR local Court, that is a defendants right.

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.

the_invisible_man

onlyfoolsandparking wrote: »

Others will advise on your defence but I would edit your VRN out of your post, the scammers read this site and can use any info they gain here against you.


You need to carry on reading the Court procedure help in the NEWBIES thread, plenty of info there, also when you say Northampton 2 hours away, you are not assuming you would have to attend there I hope, that place is just the bulk centre for service, any Court case you may attend will be at YOUR local Court, that is a defendants right.

I thought I had removed everything from that that needed to be omitted, thanks for the spot.

Local court is good news, didn't fancy a trip to Northampton.

Will go away and read more, whilst I await any help on the defense, thanks!

KeithP

Three more occurrences of your vehicle's reg.no. are still visible in your opening post.

Coupon-mad

Have a few questions:

Not sure if the driver has been identified, how would I tell this?

Only if you said who was driving in an appeal! If not, then the driver is unknown. Depending on how old the PCNs were, pre-2018 Britannia PCNs were not worded to hold a registered keeper liable, so you need to state this in defence.

Based on my draft defense below is there anything I need to change and/or remove/include, should I support any of this with photos etc if possible.

No photos at this stage - that comes a bit later on. Read bargepole's 'known what happens when' post, linked in the NEWBIES thread post #2.

I can go into the situation around the events that created these, but did not want to indite myself?

Don't worry. They will see your defences soon enough!

Please tell us what the allegation was, and how long the car was there & what happened, was it dark, were no signs seen, or what?

Almost certain they did a credit check on my a while back, is this legal and should I include it as evidence?

Unimportant. A 'soft' check is nothing, it is legal and doesn't affect your credit rating.

Due to there being 4 is it worth adding into my defense that I acknowledge that the court is pressed for time and should do 1 of these as a test case for the other 3, if so how do I include this in my defense?

Add a point at the end, listing all 4 claims, pointing out that the Claimant has made no checks, carried out no due diligence to avoid duplicate claims based on mirror image facts. State that this is an abuse of process and wholly vexatious and unreasonable conduct, when considered together with their failure to provide full details with the pre-action protocol (PAP) paperwork and failure to comply with the 2017 PAP for Debt Claims, and 4 x particulars of claim that are so sparse by way of details of the alleged breach/terms/contract, as to be embarrassing.

Ask that the Court orders for them to be merged and consolidated into one case, one hearing.

Use the same defence for all 4, listing all 4 claims in a specific point about 'abuse of process' near the end, as I've suggested.

Assume that NO Judge will look at this until much later, and so, seize the opportunity to re-state the above at EVERY stage until a Judge notices it and consolidates the claims. So that means a covering letter about it at DQ stage, and when you hear from the local court about the first one being st for a hearing, reply and tell the Judge about the need to consolidate the claims and perhaps allow a longer hearing to account for all four matters.

What were the circumstances?

the_invisible_man

Hi Coupon-mad,

Thanks for helping

Only if you said who was driving in an appeal! If not, then the driver is unknown. Depending on how old the PCNs were, pre-2018 Britannia PCNs were not worded to hold a registered keeper liable, so you need to state this in defence.

I and nobody else has stated this, as there hasn't been any correspondence with the Claimant whatsoever.

Don't worry. They will see your defences soon enough!

Please tell us what the allegation was, and how long the car was there & what happened, was it dark, were no signs seen, or what?

1. It was always dark and poorly lit on the drivers return to the car park at night
2. The driver had parked in this car park for the full day perhaps half 8 in the morning until gone 6pm
3. The driver has parked in this car park around 150-200 times
4. The way of paying for this is by a website and payments must be made by midnight that day otherwise cannot be paid

Have listed any other information/updates in my original post.

the_invisible_man

Hi All,

If anyone has the time, would they be able to review my defense above before submission at the weekend?

Thanks.

Le_Kirk

7. In reference to the ICO code which applies to all ANPR systems, the claimant fails to comply with the following, but not limited to, and the Claimant is put to strict proof; lack of the 'Privacy Notice' required to delivery mandatory information about an individual's rights of subject access under the DPA. At no point has the Defendant been advised how to apply for, and what a data subject rights are, to obtain all images and data held via a Subject Access Request from the Claimant.

Not sure what you are trying to say here but it is scrambled and makes no sense.

Were you perhaps trying to use this: -

16. This Claimant uses ANPR camera systems to process data but fails to comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information'. This Code confirms that it applies to ANPR systems, and that the private sector is required to follow this code to meet its legal obligations as a data processor. Members of the British Parking Association AOS are required to comply fully with the DPA, as a pre-requisite of being able to use the DVLA KADOE system and in order to enforce parking charges on private land. The Claimant's failures to comply include, but are not limited to:

i) Lack of an initial privacy impact assessment, and

ii) Lack of an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, considering concepts that would impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle, and.............

the_invisible_man

Hi Le_Kirk,

Yes that's the original that I took that from, do you think it best for me to just leave as is i.e. the original as it makes more sense.

Was trying to keep my defense structured the same, but if that doesn't matter I will just use as is.

Thanks!