Britannia Parking Small Claims Court

bunked

My defence below - whaddya think?


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

BRITANNIA PARKING GROUP LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

- The claim is denied in its entirety. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all. Until receiving the Court Claim Forms I have had no correspondence from Britannia Parking Group Ltd and I am completely unaware of the alleged claim. I have submitted a SAR to the Data Protection Officer at Britannia Parking to request information they hold on me as well as a copy of the PCN, photographs or any other evidence the Claimant upon which relies.

- The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant was the registered keeper at the time, is alleged to have been parked in a free car park which the claimant operates their parking services on behalf of the land owner.

- Due to the sparseness of the particulars of claim, 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. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided. As the claimant has not provided this information, or photographs or any other evidence which they are relying upon, I am unable to compose a full defence.

- Furthermore, it is denied that the claimant's signage accurately sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner. The car park is actually shared with another business and there is no indication nor clearly marked bays of allocation as to which bays belong to whom.

- 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.

- 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 PCN. This claim includes an additional £XX, which includes interest from over 3 years ago and only now are raising a claim! I believe this is attempt to further increase their already extortionate costs. I would also like to note that as the carpark in question is actually a free car park for patrons of the premises, I struggle to see how the claimant is able to demonstrate any financial loss as a result of this alleged claim.

- 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

Umkomaas

In 2015 hardly any PPC was issuing PoFA compliant NtKs, and Britannia are one of those who have only very recently made their NtK compliant. So, unless you've divulged to them who the driver was on the day, you need to claim protection as the RK under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4). They cannot hold you liable unless they've met the very clear requirements of PoFA. Lots of Judges are (increasingly) understanding the nuances and requirements of PoFA.

Build 'No Keeper Liability' into your draft.

bunked

Umkomaas wrote: »

In 2015 hardly any PPC was issuing PoFA compliant NtKs, and Britannia are one of those who have only very recently made their NtK compliant. So, unless you've divulged to them who the driver was on the day, you need to claim protection as the RK under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4). They cannot hold you liable unless they've met the very clear requirements of PoFA. Lots of Judges are (increasingly) understanding the nuances and requirements of PoFA.

Build 'No Keeper Liability' into your draft.

OK added this...? Read OK?

- Although I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle at the time in question I was not the only driver of the vehicle and as such I cannot be held liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) as I believe the claimant has not met requirements of the PoFA and the Claimant cannot assume the keeper/driver are one and the same at the time of the supposed contravention.

- 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 PCN. This claim includes an additional £XX, which includes interest from over 3 years ago and as the Claimant is only now raising a claim I believe this is attempt to further increase their already extortionate costs. I would also like to note that as the carpark in question is actually a free car park for patrons of the premises, I struggle to see how the claimant is able to demonstrate any financial loss as a result of this alleged claim.

Umkomaas

You'll need to state why it's not (or you believe it's not) compliant - and, more importantly, you'll need to get your head around the issues and ramifications of the Act in this context, because you are likely to have to articulate the point in front of the Judge.

bunked

@umkomaas OK so having read the PoFA - they have followed the act correctly and I don't see how No Keeper Liability applies, so as far as I can see it comes down to this:

"Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver."

So as the car park is free for patrons, I don't see how they've lost anything? I also don't see how they have got to approx £250 in fees! Also as it's shared car park with another bar/restaurant and there is no clearly marked bays indicating which spaces are allocated to which pub!

Honestly - as it's 3 years ago, I don't know if it was me or my ex mrs driving the car at the time, but neither do they!

ShakeItOff

Have they really followed POFA? It's para 8 I think, and there is a list they specifically have to follow. It isn't just about the deadlines, but about whether things like they have identified the creditor, the specific date, time, location etc.

Redx

so they have top prove the correct person is being taken to court , which means if they failed POFA as Umkomaas suggests, then if they cannot prove the KEEPER is liable and cannot prove who was driving, then their case should fail, so work on that basis

an NTK has to arrive within certain timescales PLUS include the various POFA wording and warnings specified in the act , so does it ? yes or no ? any failures on their part is a failure, so check the NTK

answering that is the start of any POFA defence point

bunked

@shakeitoff as I haven't received any of their demands/letters etc then I don't know if they have/havent complied with the PoFA

Umkomaas

@umkomaas OK so having read the PoFA - they have followed the act correctly and I don't see how No Keeper Liability applies

OK, so you have the NtK in front of you. Tell me:

1. Date of parking event?

2. Date of issue shown on the NtK?

3. What does the NtK say exactly about the keeper's liability for the charge?

bunked

My address listed at DVLA was where the V5C was registered, but I wasn't living there so that's why I haven't seen/had any of their demands