County Court Defence

Coupon-mad

Looks like a good draft defence to me. As the PCN was 2 years ago, that was when Britannia were not using POFA wording, so could only hold an admitted driver liable.

So, add the usual point about no keeper liability, discussed already in depth on LOTS of Britannia 2017 threads.

You will get to see the signs, at WS and evidence stage, unless you can find images by Googling the place for images - look for people who've posted here or on pepipoo with photos from the time, if any.

And check Google Street View, and change the GSV date backwards to see if the signs are visible from 2017.

BWLegalRus

Thanks, I will check the threads for information on no keeper liability.
I have also checked on Google Street View and the 2017 signs are visible but can't read wording as they are so small.

beamerguy

BWLegalRus wrote: »

Thanks, I will check the threads for information on no keeper liability.
I have also checked on Google Street View and the 2017 signs are visible but can't read wording as they are so small.

Print them off ... judges love to whoop these scammers

BWLegalRus

Hi all.
I have amended the Defence.
Any more comments? MANY THANKS!

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

xxxxxxxxxx (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (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.
3. The driver of the vehicle has not been identified by the Claimant and the Notice to Keeper issued by the Claimant is not compliant with Section 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA)2012. As such the Claimant does not have the right to recover parking charges from the registered keeper.

Particulars of Claim

4.The Claimant has failed to provide any details of the claim prior to issuing a claim at court. As such, the Claimant has failed to comply with the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, para 6 (a) & (c).
The Letter before Action fails to provide the following information:
i A clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.
ii A list of the relevant documents on which the claimant intends to rely.
iii How the “Principal Debt and Initial Legal Costs” of £160.00 pounds has been calculated.

5. The particulars of claim fail to meet CPR16.4 and PD16 7.3-7.5 consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum. The claim form itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the claimant’s case.

6. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought i.e. whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'. This has denied the Defendant a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.
As an unrepresented litigant-in-person the Defendant respectfully requests permission to amend and/or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a full disclosure of the Claimant's case.

No legally binding contract

7. 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 xx on xxx. It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice (PCN)'.

8. In any event, it is denied that the signage used by this claimant at the time of the alleged contravention, could have created a fair or transparent contract. The signage and road markings were inconsistent, confusing, unclear and hence incapable of binding the driver, thus distinguishing this case from ParkingEye v Beavis.

Unconscionable and unreasonable inflation of costs

9. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. In addition to the 'parking charge', the Claimant's legal representatives, BWLegal, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £60 which have not actually been incurred by the Claimant. 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 additional £60 ‘Contractual Costs’ for which no calculation or explanation is given appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

10. In the alternative, it was held in the Supreme Court in Beavis (where £85 was claimed, and no more) that a private parking charge already includes a very significant and high percentage in profit and more than covers the costs of running an automated regime of template letters.


No locus standi

11. 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.

12. It is believed that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied by the Claimant until the last possible minute, to the significant detriment of the unrepresented Defendant.

13. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.

14. 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.

Name
Signature
Date

bargepole

The driver of the vehicle has not been identified by the Claimant and the Notice to Keeper issued by the Claimant is not compliant with Section 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA)2012. As such the Claimant does not have the right to recover parking charges from the registered keeper.

This is the wrong approach. If you were the driver, the Judge will see that you are just trying to wriggle out on a technicality, and can ask you in court to state whether or not you were driving.

If you were not the driver, then that paragraph applies, but you need to say something about where you were at the material time.

There is also no statement about the circumstances in which the PCN came to be issued. Judges look for the facts first, and legal arguments second. Most of them do not like 'technical' defences.

BWLegalRus

Hi Bargepole,

The car was parked in a "free for 1 hour if you shop with us " parking space. Went to cashpoint and then to shop. Came back from shop (less than 1 hour) to find ticket. Don't know why it was issued!
I was hoping to get some more information from Britannia before going to court but this looks unlikely.

Coupon-mad

I reckon you will get the SAR results back before 5th March if you emailed it to the DPO.

Unlike bargepole, I say this should be left in, as the PCN was two years ago:

The driver of the vehicle has not been identified by the Claimant and the Notice to Keeper issued by the Claimant is not compliant with Section 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA)2012. As such the Claimant does not have the right to recover parking charges from the registered keeper.

BWLegalRus

Hi all,
I have added some detail about the circumstances on the day.
Your words of wisdom please......


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

xxxxxxxxxx (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (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 and driver of the vehicle in question.
3. The facts are that on the material date the Defendant’s vehicle entered the car park and parked in a free space allocated for customers whilst visiting the nearby retail store for periods of up to 1 hour. The Defendant visited the store and returned to the vehicle within 1 hour.

Particulars of Claim

4.The Claimant has failed to provide any details of the claim prior to issuing a claim at court. As such, the Claimant has failed to comply with the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, para 6 (a) & (c).
The Letter before Action fails to provide the following information:
i A clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.
ii A list of the relevant documents on which the claimant intends to rely.
iii How the “Principal Debt and Initial Legal Costs” of £160.00 pounds has been calculated.

5. The particulars of claim fail to meet CPR16.4 and PD16 7.3-7.5 consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum. The claim form itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the claimant’s case.

6. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought i.e. whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'. This has denied the Defendant a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.
As an unrepresented litigant-in-person the Defendant respectfully requests permission to amend and/or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a full disclosure of the Claimant's case.

No legally binding contract

8. 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 xx on xxx. It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice (PCN)'.

9. In any event, it is denied that the signage used by this claimant at the time of the alleged contravention, could have created a fair or transparent contract. The signage and road markings were inconsistent, confusing, unclear and hence incapable of binding the driver, thus distinguishing this case from ParkingEye v Beavis.

Unconscionable and unreasonable inflation of costs

10. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. In addition to the 'parking charge', the Claimant's legal representatives, BWLegal, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £60 which has not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery.

11. In the alternative, it was held in the Supreme Court in Beavis (where £85 was claimed, and no more) that a private parking charge already includes a very significant and high percentage in profit and more than covers the costs of running an automated regime of template letters.


No locus standi

12. 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.

13. It is believed that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied by the Claimant until the last possible minute, to the significant detriment of the unrepresented Defendant.

14. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.

15. 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.

Name
Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

Looks good, and as you've decided to defend as driver, it's simpler at a hearing.

BWLegalRus

Thanks so much - your help has been invaluable. Bring on WS stage!