Britannia Parking - BW Legal - MCOL stage

apennyinthewell

Hello all of you. Firstly, to the contributors thanks, for all of the information you have provided on the forums. It has been an amazing resource on how to properly deal with these "companies."


I am currently had the MCOL stage with a few days to go to finalise and submit my defense. Here is summary or timeline of events so you have some idea what I have had to deal with. Any input is welcome.


* Back in late 2015 a PCN was left on the vehicle what was deemed to be an overstay at the car-park.

* As the keeper of the vehicle I contacted Britannia Parking by phone requesting photographic evidence on the vehicle. None was received and I didn't hear from them for three years. No letters. Absolutely nothing.

* Late 2018 I received silent calls on a weekly basis from a number I did not recognise. Ignored them. Then in mid January 2019 I had letter from BW Legal dated mid-December 2018 that I owed Britannia Parking £240+.

* Realised the silent calls were from BW Legal.

* Made several attempts to call BW Legal. I work long hours and so I am not able to continually call. So I wrote to Britannia Parking via snail mail a SAR request and contacted BW Legal to let them know and to request to put the case on hold.

* This was ignored and I was only contacted by them AFTER I had received MCOL.

* I have since acknowledged the MCOL and extended the time in order to acquire evidence and also try and contact the land owner.

* In the last few weeks I have been given the run around by the landowner and their property management company who I was told dealt with Britannia Parking. I believe to be a genuine mistake as the directors were on holiday. I have now managed to contact one of the directors directly and I expect to hear from them tomorrow. Not relying on this though.

* I have photos of the site, signs...approach etc.

* Despite going through the MCOL stage I have continued to receive silent calls from BW Legal, and more letters pressuring me to pay the full amount.

* I didn't give Britannia Parking permission to pass on my mobile number and recently BW Legal have somehow gotten hold of the number of my elderly relatives landline and tried calling on that. This has left my relatives very distressed. GDPR issue maybe? This is despite them having my up to date email address and home address.


* I did make contact with Britannia Parking to see if I could squeeze more information from them. They just suggested to submit another SAR request, despite it being ignored already and probably not getting back in time. Ended up arguing with the customer services representative after I asked for the photos for the vehicle and he kept saying they'd be submitted in court. I have a recording of the phone call but don't think that I could use that in court sadly.

The carpark is a small private one surrounded by council run pay and display spaces which are free after 8pm. The private carpark is a 24 hour carpark but this isn't obvious when you drive in. There is a sign on the left of the entrance that isn't lit. You can't see this if you approach the entrance from the left side. There is a similar sign next to the machine directly behind the entrance sign. This is poorly lit at night.
I intend to defend my case that it was assumed the spaces were not 24 hour and due to the poor lighting the signage was inadequate. Would this be my best course of action?

Photos to follow imminently.

Fees and amount claimed.
£85 was the fine, although £50 was offered at the time I was waiting for evidence.

Just under £170 is the amount claimed.
£25 court fee.
£50 legal representive's costs.
Total amount just under £250

£22.84 added based upon the county courts act 1984 of 8% interest per annum from 2015 until the end of January.
£60 added for contractual costs pursuant to PCN Terms and Conditions.

All positive input or constructive criticism welcome. Anything not clear then please point it out.

Kind regards,

APennyInTheWell

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

apennyinthewell

25th of January 2019

Regards,


APennyInTheWell

ShakeItOff

Photos of the site may not fall under the SAR, but will almost undoubtedly surface in the Witness Statement Stage.

Have you had a chance to look over the NEWBIES post #2? This has some defences that may be very useful to you.

The information you have posted above will go some way into showing how poor the Claimant's conduct has been, and you may also want to complain to the ICO about the lack of SAR. This isn't a "might comply" it's a "must comply". And suggesting that a second SAR is submitted is absolutely ridiculous.

While you're at it, a well penned complaint to your local MP would be good too!

Anyway... when you're ready, post up a draft defence (suitable redacted, of course).

KeithP

apennyinthewell wrote: »

25th of January 2019

With a Claim Issue Date of 25th January, you had until Wednesday 13th February to do the Acknowledgement of Service.

Did you do the AoS by that date? Please confirm.

Assuming you did do the AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 27th February 2019 to file your Defence.

That's less than two days away. Not long at all, 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.

apennyinthewell

Thank you for such a fast reply. Much appreciated. I've devoted this evening and tomorrow to completing my defense. Will post it very soon.

I am in the middle of building a complaint with my local MP. He has the letters. Just putting in extra info in an email for context.

Regarding the harvesting of phone numbers, is that a GDPR issue, especially given that the second one was after contact had been made via email.

Regards,

APennyInTheWell

Redx

save your GDPR issues until later on , when you have the results of a SAR by email to the DPO at BRIT, plus another SAR to B W LEGAL asking about their data including those phone numbers

in the meantine CONCENTRATE on drafting your defence (no S in defence)

and there was no "fine", so NEVER use that F word in this case, its an INVOICE ( a Parking Charge Notice, or PCN for short)

so not to be used at all are

no S in DEFENCE

and no 4 letter F word either

post the proposed draft below and dont go off piste asking about GDPR issues yet because even if you complain to the SRA and the ICO it will take months for them to look into it

at the worst case, start on the GDPR issues AFTER the court case is complete

but dont forget to do the 2 SAR,s asap, wont take long as you can email them both

KeithP

But did you do the AoS in a timely manner or not?

apennyinthewell

Hi KeithP,
I had posted my reply just as your message came through so didn't see it. Straight after that I went out to get some more evidence. I got a dash cam video of the approach and entrance of the car park.

To answer your question, yes I did it in a timely manner. So you're correct, 27th at 4pm it is.

Interestingly they've recently changed some of the signs recently to make it more confusing that it's actually a 24 hour carpark.

Slight correction to my original post, the surrounding spaces are free after 6pm, not 8pm.

Thanks for the corrections to my spelling. (not sarcasm!) I am auditory and visually dyslexic so I will need your eagle eyes when I post up my defence tomorrow.

Many thanks,

APennyInTheWell

apennyinthewell

Also, noted on the GDPR issues. Shall focus just on the defence for now.

Regards,
APennyInTheWell

apennyinthewell

Sorry for the late reply. Ended up being very busy at work. Luckily I've got a planned easy day tomorrow that on one can take me away from.

Here is my defence. Is it ok and is there anything else I can include before I email it in. Also, if I post photos in this thread so that you have some idea what I am working with, what is the best way to go about this?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (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 facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked in the evening well after sundown in total darkness. Ambient light from the nearby street lamps do not provide sufficient light to see the signs in and around the carpark. The one light that is provided above the machines is not sufficient to read the signs at night. The main light source is the flash of the camera used to capture the evidence. This can clearly be seen in the Claiment's photos. No terms could be seen and therefore the driver was unaware that any payment was due, and no contract was entered. All the surrounding spaces next to the carpark are free of charge after 6pm. Therefore it was reasonably assumed by the driver the the same applied to the space where the vehicle was parked. Due to these circumstances the driver was not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound. The Defendant only learnt from a letter several weeks later from Britannia Parking, that drivers were supposed to pay to use the car park throughout the night after 6pm.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). 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. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

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.

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. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary 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.

8. 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 £170~. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

9. 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.

Name
Signature
Date



Kind regards,


APennyInTheWell.