BW Legal County Court Claim Support

aliparkingbw

Hello,

I have read the NEWBIES thread and examples of defence - please see below. Any advice greatly appreciated. Date of county court claim form 11/02/19.

Thanks

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxx

BRITANNIA PARKING LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________


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 xxxxxxxxxxx car park on xxxxxxxxx.

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

3. Pre-action protocol was not adhered to by the claimant, as no evidence of claim was supplied with the LBCCC. A SAR was requested from the claimant on 22/01/2019, however to date (12/03/2019) no information has been supplied. Contact with BW Legal requesting a hold on this case until correspondence had been received was denied. As such, the claim fails to comply with the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice 22.3 “If the motorist asks for it, you must make available any photographic evidence you have.” Thus, not allowing the Defendant to determine whether or not the claim was legitimate.

4. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. 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.

5. Due to the sparseness of 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.

6. Further, it is denied that the claimant's signage (in 2017) set out the terms in a sufficiently clear and fair manner, which would consequently be capable of binding a person reading them. The BPA advises (18.2) that “Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format.” Appendix B (BPA) provides an example of entrance signage that was not in place at the time of this alleged contravention. Please see Appendix A for the sign that was in place at this time. This signage does not follow the British Parking Association Code of Conduct (18.2) for entrance signs as it does not include “[x minutes’/hour’s/hours’] free parking [for [business name] customers only]” from the Group 1 text instead using a more unusual language of “maximum stay”.

7. The terms and conditions 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 font would be unable to do so easily. Particularly in relation to the entrance sign, which is inadequate in size and prominence, mounted high up, out of the drivers' line of sight. The BPA (18.3) states “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” It is, therefore denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
9. The Claimant’s signage also does not clearly state that is a 24 hour car park. An adjacent carpark, separated only by a pathway (see Appendix B for photo), does not charge/fine for use after 7pm. It is, therefore denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.


10. The car park in question operated with no restrictions or enforcement until the end of the year 2016. A small sign positioned up high was in place but no signage on entrance to the carpark. The claimant has failed to comply with the British Parking Association, Code of Practice 18.10 which states, “Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional/temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the new ones. ”.

11. Following the Claimant’s claim the Defendant is aware that the Claimant added further signage, including a large sign at the entrance of the car park. The Claimant also altered the signs in the car park from 3 hours free parking to 4 hours free parking after 7pm (changing the “no return” within 3 hours to 1 hour). Photos supplied in appendix A are at time of and following alleged contravention.

12. In addition to the original PCN penalty, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added 'costs' of £60 contractual costs pursuant to PCN Terms and conditions, which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.  Such costs are not permitted (CPR 27.14).

13. 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 £100.

14. 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.

15. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence to be true.

Name
Signature
Date”.

Umkomaas

What are you anticipating from your post when the forum has no understanding about any of the circumstances involved?

What kind of car park?

Does Britannia have a case against the Registered Keeper in the context of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4)?

What about a timeline of events?

Did you appeal to Britannia? What did you say in it?

Did you appeal to POPLA? What did you say in it? What did POPLA say?

KeithP

aliparkingbw wrote: »

Date of county court claim form 11/02/19.

Hi and welcome.

With a Claim Issue Date of 11th February, you had until Monday 4th March to do the Acknowledgement of Service. Did you do the A0S before 4th March?
I'll assume you did. Please confirm.


With a Claim Issue Date of 11th February, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 18th March 2019 to file your Defence.

That's less than a week to go. 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.

aliparkingbw

Hi,

I have completed the AOS and compiled he above defence to email.

Circumstances:
This carpark had no enforcement until the end of 2016. It was free to come and go as part of a new development. I then parked in the carpark after 7pm (March 2017) and collected before 10am the next morning. I was aware there was a 3 hour limit but was NOT aware that this was a 24 hour carpark. The carpark has "Maximum Stay 3 hours" sigange. There was no "large" entrance signage.
At this venue there are 2 carparks that are separated by a pathway and the other car park does not enforce after 7pm.
At some point following March 2017 Britannia added a large sign to the entrance and also changed their rules to allow 4 hours after 7pm and no return within 1 hour (was previously 3 hours).

Appeal: No appeal to Britannia. Or POPLA.

There is a case against the registered keeper.

Thanks!

Umkomaas

Date of parking event?

Windscreen ticket, or ANPR camera capture?

Date of issue on the first letter (Notice to Keeper - NtK) from Britannia?

Turning to the NtK - does it contain a paragraph about the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which commences words similar to 'You are notified under paragraph 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 ..... '. And a further paragraph which commences 'You are warned that if, after 29 days from the date given ....'?

aliparkingbw

The alleged contravention is from 04/03/2017. A letter was received with ANPR photos entering and leaving the car park.
Unfortunately, and annoyingly, all letters received in 2017 have been destroyed as no further correspondence was received following approx May 2017. I requested a SAR from Britannia in January and haven’t heard anything. I emailed BW Legal to put the case on hold until SAR info received but they wrote back and said no.

Umkomaas

I requested a SAR from Britannia in January and haven’t heard anything.

Send them a reminder, giving them just 7 days to respond. Threaten you will report their refusal to respond to the ICO immediately after the 7-day deadline. Carry out your threat.

Make sure what you're asking for relates to personal info about you. Do not ask for copies/site maps of signage or landowner contracts. But you do definitely want to have a copy of the NtK.

The_Deep

Paragraph 13 needs a bit more padding, mention the extra £60 if they have added it.

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 become so widespread that MPs agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. It has cleared Parliament and hopefully, this will become law shortly.

aliparkingbw

I have sent another email to Britannia requesting SAR to be responded to within 7 days.
I have included the £60 added cost into para 12 - does this sound ok?
Thanks for advice, really appreciated.

Anything else I can add in/do?

beamerguy

I agree with Umkomaas

Britannia must start behaving in a professional manner. Ever since they have been involved with BWLegal, they have become very arrogant and ignorant.

With the new government CoP on it's way, they had best buck up their ideas and carefully consider who they listen to.

It will end up with us doing a Nigel Farage who in the EU Parliament said .... "I told you but you did not listen"

The time is getting closer and I guess Britannia should now be put on a warning

aliparkingbw

Is the date of 18th March correct? I thought it was 33 days (28+5) which would be today? From 11/02/19?

I have defence ready but an extra weekend would help!