Court Claim Britannia BW legal again

Norfolkinchance

Good morning again all.

I have tinkered very slightly with the WS by adding in the ‘Abuse of process’ parts from Coupon-Mad.

I have put all of the Exhibits together that I have referenced in the WS and building a lovely referenced bundle with contents page.

One question for this morning please. The additional references such as ‘Beavis’, case transcripts and other docs mentioned in my defence etc. Do this need to be referenced as exhibits.

Need to Hand deliver Tuesday to court and send via email to BWL.

Here’s the amended WS

In the County Court at XXXXXXXXXX

Case Number XXXXXXXXXXXX

Parties

Claimant XXXXXXXXX -v- Defendant XXXXXXXXX

I XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Am the Defendant

——————————
Witness Statement
——————————

1. On (Date) the claimant issued a ‘Parking Charge Notice (PCN)’ on my vehicle.

2. I am the registered keeper for this vehicle but there are others insured to drive it.

3. On (Date) I was in hospital after a major operation and under the care of the consultant. I refer to Exhibit A. This is a letter confirming that I was in hospital and could not have been the driver on the date of the alleged breach of parking. I was in hospital from the (date) to (date) in which time I was unable to drive. Added to this after being released from hospital it was a further 5 weeks before I was cleared to drive.

4. The driver of the vehicle on (date) arrived in the early hours in darkness due to the complications around my condition in hospital and was unaware of any restrictions in the car park due to the very poor signage and lack of signs at the entrance.

5. I refer to a video Exhibit B taken from the car in similar dark conditions to the day of the alleged breach which clearly show how difficult it is to read the signs.

6. I refer to Exhibit C photo sheet, these show the various signs in daylight and the small print. I have also included a picture of the main sign in darkness to compare.
Also included on this photo sheet is daylight pictures of the entrance to the car park and a picture clearly showing the entrance sign to the adjacent car park obscured by a parked vehicle

7. I refer to Exhibit D photo sheet, this shows the map of the route of access to the car park.
7a. Marked A on the map is the poorly positioned entrance sign which could be perceived as a different car park entirely, this sign is also in such an orientation that it cannot be seen when driving up the road.
7b. Marked B on the map is the location of the main sign which as per Exhibit B is impossible to be seen or read as it is not lit at all.
7c. Marked C & D on the map are two smaller signs, again unlit and impossible to see in the dark.

8. I have approached the Claimant twice for ‘Subject Access Request (SAR)’. The first was ignored and the second the claimant sent information about a totally unrelated PCN with my husbands name on it and his details, implying that this was all the information they held on my vehicle registration. Exhibit E is the SAR which was received.
Page 1 of 3
Case Number XXXXXXXXXXXX Witness Statement – Defendant

9. I have also noticed that the claimant has carried out a credit check on me, indicating that they are checking if it is ‘worth’ pursuing someone, particularly if they have a good credit rating. At no point did I agree to a credit check. Exhibit F is from my credit file showing this.

10. Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.
- Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

10a. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

10b. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

10c. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

10d. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the
Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.



Page 2 of 3
Case Number XXXXXXXXXXXX Witness Statement – Defendant


10e. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

10f In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

10g. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

10h. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

11. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14. Please see Exhibit G which is my Schedule of Costs.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this statement are true

Signed xxxxxxxxxxx

Full Name xxxxxxxxxx

Date xxxxxxxxxx Page 3 of 3

beamerguy

Great .... one quick tweak

''IT IS ORDERED THAT >>>>>> to

The judges said ... ''IT IS ORDERED THAT

Norfolkinchance

Thanks Beamerguy, I will amend later. Have a great day

Coupon-mad

Don't forget to include the actual judgment from DJ Grand and the new one from Caernarfon - search the forum for that word, saves me having to find the links to the transcripts as I posted them only yesterday!

You want your Judge to read what 2 other judges from different parts of the UK have to say about the added 'costs' that are not allowed and are an abuse. So the judgments themselves need appending.

Coupon-mad

Just to add, as you are saying that in fact you were not the driver, your next point needs to be explaining why the NTKs from Britannia in 2017 were no POFA (clue, look at 9(2)f of Schedule 4 and hopefully you will not find that warning in your NTK).

No point saying you weren't driving if you forget to say why that matters in law!

Norfolkinchance

Hi Coupon-mad

Thank you again for your advice. I will get on it ASAP and look up the relevant transcripts and POFA/NTK bits.

I have no idea what is on the NTK until BWL send me their WS as I never received one. 1st thing I had was LBC.

Many thanks again

nosferatu1001

You do know, because you can find 2017 examples littered around the forum. Their template was woeful then and still not entirely there now (strictly, likely "good enough")

Norfolkinchance

Hi all

Just thought I’d give you an update.

Sent the WS and Exhibits to BWL via Email and then hand delivered to Court on the day. Was up until 3am getting it all finished, the courts bundle all labelled, contents pages, exhibits clearly marked. Was a mammoth night.

Then!!!!! Letter of Discontinuance arrived yesterday from BWL (day after email). So much relief and a massive thank you to all who have helped me along the way with this. CM you have been an absolute star especially with the amazing defence. But I honestly couldn’t have done it without ALL who have contributed. There have been times when I considered just giving in but then I would read some other threads about people winning and how much I hate these parking/robo scum legal companies. This forum gave me the knowledge and strength to carry on fighting.

I hadn’t received BP/BWL’s WS etc on the day specified and I wonder if my exhibits and WS I had submitted made them realise they would lose. I think the DJ Grand and Caernarfon cases and the inclusion of Abuse of Process documents made them crawl under their rock pretty fast. I also had a letter which unequivocally proved I was not the driver on the day as I was in Hospital.

Surely at some point the government and courts will put a complete end to this scamming.

Again, I cannot thank you all so much. I will keep an eye on this forum and hope to see many more cases dropped or won.

Keep up the good work.

Coupon-mad

Brilliant news! So pleased for you.

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Norfolkinchance

Thank you Coupon-mad

You are amazing.

Another one notched up for you guys.

Thanks again