BW Legal/Britannia Parking Court Claim

Guardia7x

Good evening people!

First I would like to say thank you for all the indirect help I have got from reading this Forum, you guys are amazing.

As advised on the "NEWBIES", I am starting a new thread now that I have received a Court Claim letter (Issue Date: 06 FEB 2019), which I have already acknowledged though the MCOL website.

I have some questions before starting with the defence, which needs to be submitted before the 10th of March (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Before I start with the questions, I would like to describe the situation:

The car was parked at an ANPR monitored car park, a ticket was paid by "PayByPhone" for 24h of parking at 4:03pm, allowing parking until next day at 4:03pm, then the driver next day realised that needed an extension for the parking, and paid for an extra 2h of parking at 4:16pm allowing parking until 6:16pm. Now, the PCN was issued at 5:57pm stating "Failed to make a valid payment".
I can only assume it is because of the 13 minutes that took the driver get the extension for the parking, right?

My first question is: is the Grace Period relevant for this case?

Also I would like to ask if at this point I should ask for a SAR?

Thanks a lot for your help, it is deeply appreciated.

Kind Regards.

PS: English is not my first language, so I would like to apologise for any incongruousness.

KeithP

Guardia7x wrote: »

I have received a Court Claim letter (Issue Date: 06 FEB 2019), which I have already acknowledged though the MCOL website.

I have some questions before starting with the defence, which needs to be submitted before the 10th of March (please correct me if I'm wrong).

With a Claim Issue Date of 6th February, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 11th March 2019 to file your Defence.

That's nearly 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.
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.

And to answer one of your other questions: yes, send a Subject Access Request as soon as you can. The sooner you get the returned information the better.

Guardia7x

Thank you for your quick response KeithP, really appreciate it!

Le_Kirk

PS: English is not my first language, so I would like to apologise for any incongruousness.

For someone whose first language is not English, that's pretty damn good!

beamerguy

Guardia7x .... good written English

BPA on grace periods

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods

"No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place."

I think this is your case.

As this is from BWLegal, they have probably claimed an extra £60

BWLEGAL ADD ON A FAKE £60 ?
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. >>>> thanks to bargepole

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.

Guardia7x

Le_Kirk wrote: »

For someone whose first language is not English, that's pretty damn good!

Thanks for your reply Le_Kirk , very encouraging. I have to confess though, that Google Translator is my friend.

beamerguy wrote: »

Guardia7x .... good written English

BPA on grace periods

"No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place."

I think this is your case.

I much appreciate your comment beamerguy, very helpful link as well, now I will try to put it into words that fit the defence (Google Translator, here we go again!) I will keep looking at defences in the forum to get an idea of how to.

beamerguy wrote: »

As this is from BWLegal, they have probably claimed an extra £60

BWLEGAL ADD ON A FAKE £60 ?
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. >>>> thanks to bargepole

They have indeed, should this be mentioned on the defence?

Thanks a lot for taking the time for reading my post and specially for replying , your help is really appreciated!

nosferatu1001

Yes, you mention the
ABUSE OF PROCESS
by claiming monies to which they are not entitled, namely a fake £60 of either debt collector costs that were not incurred, and even if they wefre, are not your responsibiltiy, o rsolicitor costs which again were not incurred, but again even if they were, are not your responsibiltiy in small claims track (for your reference, look up CPR27.14 - it tells you what costs CAN be and CANNOT be claimed in small claims hearings)

The_Deep

The £6y0 charge is unlawful. The down market solicitors whom the PPCs engage know this, but, because they are solicitors, know that a lot of people will pay up.

It is in fact double charging and, imo, fraud, or, at the very least, improper conduct.

Were this to get to court and they won, the judge would be unlikely to award the claimant more than £175 - £200.

I urge you to report this grubby law firm to their regulatory body, the SRA.

https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/code/content.page

as I am sure they do not condone this conduct.

Guardia7x

Good evening,

First of all, million thanks for all your replies! :beer:

After reading multiple defences and not being able to fully relate to any (or not knowing how to), I found Palec's case on the 'NEWBIES' (A BW Legal PPS claim, where the D is being pursued for a small tariff from 2014 that isn't owed) which I think is a 'good enough' match for my situation.
So I tweaked the draft defence that Coupon-mad suggests on the post #134 from that thread, to make it (or try at least) relevant for my defence.
So here is the first draft:

In The County Court

Claim No: XXXXXXX

Between

Britannia Parking (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

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

2. The allegation appears to be based on a parking charge notice ('PCN') that was issued just thirteen minutes after expiry of paid-for time, breaching the mandatory 'grace period' whilst the parking time was already being extended.

3. At the material time, the Claimant operated strictly subject to the January 2018 British Parking Association ('BPA') CoP, which says: Grace Periods:
13.4 ''You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave
the private car park after the parking contract has ended,
before you take enforcement action.''

3.1. Further, and in support of the submission that it is reasonable to conclude that the grace period should be more than thirteen minutes, the Defendant has found a BPA article published in 2013. The article is by Kelvin Reynolds, Director of Policy and Public Affairs, who, despite encouraging a ''war on the non-compliant motorist'' was honoured by the BPA for his outstanding contribution to parking with a Lifetime Achievement Award.

3.1.1. Mr Reynolds' article had this to say about grace periods, which shows that the Defendant was not (in the BPA Trade Body's view) 'a non-compliant motorist': “No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.” The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place. Kelvin continues:''In the instance of a PCN being issued while a ticket is being purchased, the operator has clearly not given the motorist sufficient time to read the signs and comply as per the operator’s own rules.''

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 breached any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. 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, especially with no 'grace period' mentioned. Any reasonably circumspect driver would be entitled to rely upon the BPA's interpretation and not expect to be penalised for the time taken to buy a second ticket.

6. In any case, the Claimant is put to strict proof that it had sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it had the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation in its own name on the material date. The Claimant appears to be a contractor on an agent/principal basis operating under a bare licence to erect signs and collect monies from the machines, and no doubt, to issue PCNs - but 'on behalf of' the landowner, which would give them no authority or standing.

6.1. Even if the Claimant was authorised to issue PCNs in their own right, it is denied that they could do so unfairly in a grace period and outwith the scope of the BPA CoP

7. In addition to the original PCN penalty, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added 'costs' of £60, which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.


7.1. These have been variously described as a 'BW Legal instructions fee' (in the pre-action exchange of letters) and/or a 'debt collection charge' (not part of any terms on signage and cannot be added, not least because it was never expended). Suddenly in the Particulars there is also a second add-on for purported 'legal representative costs of £50' on top of the vague £60, artificially hiking the sum to £239.18. This would be more than double recovery, being vague and disingenuous and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.

7.2. Not only are such costs not permitted (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 & paste PPS robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities.

7.2.1. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.

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.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.


Name
Signature
Date

Please do let me know if is not correct to use that much of the same defence, or if I am not following any of the forum rules.

Thank you so much for all the help already provided.

Kind regards.

Guardia7x

Good evening,

Any advice before I submit my defence? Any comments on it would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Kind regards.