Britannia Parking - BW Legal - MCOL stage

Coupon-mad

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?

Host them in Dropbox and post a shared link - BUT CHANGE HTTP TO HXXP.

So this is UKCPM, you say:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

Yet you go on to say:

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.

Typo copied from that example defence needs putting right:

prorpietary

apennyinthewell

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

BRITANNIA PARKING GROUP 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 Group LTD, 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 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.

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.

apennyinthewell

Would it be an idea to include a reference to the case regarding poor signage in my defence. Also, is there anything that I may have missed on regards to arguing the costs that they have added to the claim?
Photos will follow in a moment.


Kind regards,


APennyInTheWell

apennyinthewell

The photos are here:
hxxps://!!!!!!/2IDXMpJ




Would it be safe to upload photos I've recently received from the parking company IF they are heavily cropped or is that too risky?

Kind regards,


APennyInTheWell

Coupon-mad

That defence looks fine, and the pics will be useful later, at WS and evidence stage.

apennyinthewell

Just before I send this off...

"Would it be an idea to include a reference to the case regarding poor signage in my defence. Also, is there anything that I may have missed on regards to arguing the costs that they have added to the claim?"

Regards,


APennyInTheWell

Coupon-mad

What, case law (another claim case) regarding poor signs? No, not in a defence.

EDIT - THERE IS NOW A TEMPLATE DEFENCE AT THE TOP OF THIS FORUM.

apennyinthewell

You're a star Coupon-mad. Thank you very much for that.




Regards,


APennyInTheWell

apennyinthewell

Right, well here is the final draft.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

BRITANNIA PARKING GROUP 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 car park are free of charge after 6pm. Therefore it was reasonably understood by the driver, in the absence of any prominent and lit information to the contrary, that 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 research after receiving a vague letter several weeks later from Britannia Parking Group Ltd, that drivers were supposed to pay to use the car park throughout the night after 6pm. How on earth drivers can know this when no signs can be seen, beggars belief and disregards the British Parking Association's Code of Practice regarding mandatory signs, and in particular, enforcement during the hours of darkness.

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 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.


8. The POFA, 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 being a maximum of £100 depending on the Claimant's full compliance with the POFA and establishing a breach of a 'relevant obligation' and/or 'relevant contract'.

9. This claim inflates the total to an eye-watering £2xx.xx, in a clear attempt at double recovery. The Defendant trusts that the presiding Judge will recognise this wholly unreasonable conduct as a gross abuse of process and may consider using the court's case management powers to strike the claim out of the court's own volition. The acid test is whether the conduct permits of a reasonable explanation, but the Defendant avers it cannot.

10. 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 costs allegedly incurred by already renumerated clerical staff working for BW Legal in issuing robo-claims.

11. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs at all because no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims at all. Claims such as this have recently been struck out by County Courts for reasons of: ''substantial charge additional to the parking charge. Additional charge not recoverable under the POFA, Pre-action Protocol and CPRs. Abuse of process by claimant'' and substantial punitive costs on the indemnity basis have been claimed by Defendants, due to parking firm Claimants' unreasonable conduct in the matter of adding unrecoverable and imaginary 'damages' made up out of thin air. Debt collection agencies act on a no-win-no-fee basis for parking operators, so even if letters were sent by any third party, no such costs or damages have been incurred, in truth. Thus, there can be no 'damages' to pile on top of any parking charge claim, and the Defendant asks that the Court takes judicial notice of this industry's repeated abuse of consumers' rights and remedies.

12. It was held in the Supreme Court in Parkingeye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (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.

13. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial, the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).


I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Regards,


APennyInTheWell

apennyinthewell

Thank you very much to all of you who have helped me so far. I will keep posting back to this thread through the court case and with what action I have taken post course case as a way of giving back. Hopefully others will fine this thread useful as I go through this process.


Kind regards and many thanks from ThePennyInTheWell