Britannia Parking / BWLegal - PCN Advice

RSG1997

Hello All,

Please if someone could help !

I am unsure what to do and how to proceed in terms of dealing with the below letters i have received in regards to staying over the time stated in a car park back in January.

I have been told and i have read about how Britannia are and that a PCN is something that isn't enforceable by Law and is only an invoice. Others have said to avoid and ignore the previous charges that have been sent to me to pay the ticket because it is only a scare tactic for them to milk money out of people, saying it will cost them more to take me to court and that i will be fine however a letter has appeared saying i need to pay £160 in 14 days otherwise they will refer to their client for a CCJ to be issued and a Court Proceeding with a Letter of Claim pursuant to the Pre-Action protocol .

Is this something i would be safe to ignore or will i have to defend sooner than later because i rather not have this looming in the back ground as added debt as i am already trying to pay back more important offers and cannot be dealing with forking out money towards something i find unjust.

My knowledge on Law , court proceedings etc. is non existent and as only being 21 i am worried i will be swindled or pressured on the spot by more experienced opponents wrapping their tongues and words around me if it went to court, meaning i want to arm myself with a strong defence or understanding to back myself and if possible stop it before it even escalates that far.

( I do have images of the letters however the site wont let me upload as being a new user )

All help would be greatly appreciated !

Thank you

Fruitcake

Edit your post to remove information about who parked. Only ever refer to The Driver and The Keeper who are two different people.
The Keeper has protections in law that The Driver does not.

Parking scammers read these fora.

Once you have done this, read the sticky thread for NEWBIES then send the blue appeal template from The Keeper you will find in post 1 of the NEWBIES.

The advice to ignore has not been given here since the law changed in 2012. Anyone who suggests you ignore this should be asked if they will help towards paying it should it go to court.

RSG1997

Brilliant, thank you for the advice on the edit. I will have a look now on the sticky posts, much appreciated, will my dealings be only with BW Legal in terms of emailing and disputing this ?

Fruitcake

Send an SAR to the scammers as per the NEWBIES advice, otherwise most of your correspondence will be will the scamlicitors.

It will be helpful if you ca give the timeline from the date of the alleged event and when the NTK was received.

I believe the NEWBIES tells you how to post images using a web hosting site.

RSG1997

Gotcha, will do both , and the date of contravention was the 8th January 2019 and the letter i received was today but dated 5th Match 2019, i have a link to post of the letter however due to this account just being set up it wont allow me to let me post links.

LoneStarState

Hi RSG1997

Which car park did you overstay in out of interest?

RSG1997

Hey,

Frankies & Bennies Car park within a Garden Centre

The_Deep

One can spend hours browsing in a garden centre, and imo it is most unreasonable to try to restrict customers to less than 3 hours, how long were you there for?

Get your MP on side as this is an entirely unregulated and unreasonable 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 become so widespread that MPs agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Hopefully, this will become law by Easter .

RSG1997

Hi,

The driver stayed in the car park for i believe 2 3/4 hours, however the car park itself is separate and belongs to the restaurant but is apart of the complex. As the driver was instructed that they were permitted to park there like other members of staff to collect a friend from work however they ended staying alot longer than expected due to assisting them at work.

Coupon-mad

So get the person's work line manager to cancel it right now, this coming week.

RSG1997

Hi Guys,

I have had help and support from legal begals so far in my case, however no response to my defence and checking this before i submit, would someone be able to have a look at my defence and confirm if you agree this would be okay to be sent ? I need to submit by 16:00 today.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim Number:

BETWEEN:
Britannia Parking Group Limited t/a Britannia Parking (Claimant)
vs
Mr (Defendant)

__________________________________________________ _________________________

Defence Argument

I am ()address) the defendant in this matter.

The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to the Claimant's case. I must state that this is a claim for parking in a restaurant car park where the parking company have unreasonably imposed a 20-minute limit for restaurant customers.

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at Frankie’s & Bennies Car Park in Spalding on the 8th January 2019.

2. As the defendant I have been harassed and bombarded by BW Legal who have stated that they have been instructed by Britannia Parking Group, to recover a due balance for a PCN, which I would like to state that no previous letters were known to me on arrival for the reduction of the charge or of the charge in question, until requested by a SAR sent to them. This was unknown to me at the start of these proceedings for payment that the contravention even took place.

3. I believe the claimant is unable to take steps to enforce the requirement to pay against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver so were pursuing me based off assumptions. In compliance with (2)(e) of the POFA, they must state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and current address and instead assumed that I was in the first instance without acknowledging that they did not know clearly. I feel like this was mainly targeted at myself to add pressure to make a prompt payment and was not made clear that they were not aware on who was involved and wasn’t openly declared.

4. I would like to state in the dispute I sent, BWLegal are claiming the following “Our Client's cause of action is that you breached the terms and conditions of the contract which you entered into by parking your vehicle in the car park for longer than the maximum time permitted.” which in my eyes shows that they are assuming and pursuing me as the driver of the vehicle which is not known to them and only can pursue and chase myself as the keeper of the vehicle. This I see as a break of the terms and conditions set out by the POFA.

5. In the dispute that was sent I was denied a picture and a map showing where any signs were displayed. A copy of the agreement between the landowner/authorised agent & Britannia was requested, the defendant received the following response “Please be aware that the contract between Our Client and the landowner is a legally privileged document which you have no right to inspect. However, should this matter progress to court, the contract will be adduced as evidence. “The defendant to prepare themselves needed additional information and continued with the following “For completeness, please advise me which of the parties to the contract is a solicitor (or similar), & what is their SRA registration number?” This request by the defendant was met with the exact response it was met with previously, was this contract formed with that type of privilege in mind? And even so how it can be legally privileged when it is stated that they will produce it in court.

6. I have made a perfectly legitimate request for disclosure of documents relevant to the instant case, I as the defendant am not prepared to be ambushed at the court hearing & if necessary, will ask for an adjournment at the claimant’s expense.


7. It is submitted that the conduct of the claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such the defendant is keeping note of wasted time and costs in dealing with this matter and such distress to current mental health issues which this is causing.

8. No agreement to any contract was made by the defendant involved. The vehicle was believed to be using the parking services offered FOC by the restaurant, I believe it would be unfair to assume that 20 minutes which has been stated by the claimant is an appropriate max amount of time to dine in a restaurant.

9. The elements of offer, acceptance and consideration both ways have therefore not been satisfied and so no contract can exist.

10. The defendant was told the following in response to my appeal from BWLegal “It is unnecessary to apply an analysis of offer, acceptance and consideration quite simply because the contract was formed on mutual promises. By parking your vehicle in the car park you have entered into a unilateral contract with Our Client. Acceptance does not have to be communicated, the act of parking your vehicle is acceptance.” This was not communicated to me in any way that simply leaving a vehicle there would be acceptance of a contract forming. Surely if two parties were involved as they say in a “commercial” contract both parties would have a clear understanding of the terms & conditions before accepting. I see nothing mutual about this.

11. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case.

12. Neither the claim form, nor the signage state who the owner of the land is.

13. The defendant is being chased for an additional £60.00 for, as stated by BWLegal, “the sum of £60.00 attributable towards these costs are entirely reasonable for nature and type of work involved in recovering the parking charge”, which I think is highly unreasonable to add additional charges to a PCN, when I am trying to defend myself and appeal.

14. Previous letters to the defendant from BW Legal have stated that the £60.00 claimed is "for our debt recovery costs" then this has switched to “instruction fees”, the switching of the names proves inconsistent in knowing what the fees are for and why they are required and how this relates to the PCN.

15. Legal services cannot be claimed in the small claims court as per CPR 27.14

16. As the claimant has stated they intend to rely on the POFA and pursue me as the registered keeper. The defendant is being chased for the total of £237.52 when under POFA this states that no more than the initial PCN should be requested from the keeper under POFA (9)(2)(f). The defendant believes the claimant has broken the terms & conditions they are being held to by the POFA they are relying on by adding additional charges.

17. The claim includes a sum of £60, described as "liable for our £60.00 instructions fee". This work is done as part of the Claimant's everyday routine and no "expert services" are involved. The Claimant is put to strict proof, by way of timesheets or otherwise, to show how this cost has been incurred.

18. In summary it is the defendant’s position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit and has no 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

19. The Unfair terms in the Consumer contact regulations 1999 applies.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.



Name

Signature

Date


Thank you so much ,

RSG