We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
My turn for a BW Legal / Britannia Parking Country Court Claim
PAR1
Posts: 7 Forumite
Hello
I have been following your advice and very much appreciate it. Nevertheless, I find that I now have to defend a county court claim filed by BW Legal on behalf of Britannia Parking. Sigh.
Summary:
Summary of case:
1. Regular user of a Britannia car park – usually for a full day. Vast majority of users will use this car park for a full day
2. Car park uses ANPR and allows online payment for parking, which appears to be preferred method of nearly all users (online payment even allowed to occur the next day) or via machine
3. On day of alleged offence, circumstances meant that I decided not to use the car park, and left the car park approx. 12 minutes after arrival
4. No signs indicating minimum stay or requirement to pay before a certain period of time had expired
5. Appealed to Britannia (but before I was aware of this useful forum) but no appeal to POPLA
6. Letter before claim was inadequate. My response to the LBC was ignored entirely. BW Legal moved straight to county court claim
Note that I have submitted an AOS and so know that I have until 16 March to file my defence. Other posts and threads indicate that a concise defence is best. I’d be grateful for feedback on below.
Defence:
************************************************** **********
Issue Date of Claim: 11/02/19
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: CXXXXXX
BETWEEN:
BRITANNIA PARKING (Claimant)
-and-
XXXX XXXXXX (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2.The PCN was issued at XXXXXX for an alleged stay of 12 minutes. The Claimant, who is the member of the British Parking Association (BPA), has failed to comply with Clause 13 of the BPA’s Code Of Practice’s General Condition with regards to grace periods that state:
“You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”
3. The defendant does not believe that the Claimant allowed a sufficient amount of time that could be deemed “a reasonable grace period” to enter and exit said carpark.
4. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a).
5. The PoC did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. These documents, and the ‘Letter before County Court Claim’ should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre Action Conduct.
6. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to “take stock”, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction.
7. On the basis of the above the defendant request the court strike out the claim for want of a cause of action. Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and, if these Particulars are filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.
8. Further, 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.
9. 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. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
8. The parking charge terms and the sum itself was not prominent and no contract was agreed. As such the facts and circumstances of this case can be fully distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, and fails to avoid falling foul of the penalty rule, due to a lack of any possibility to argue a 'legitimate interest' excuse.
9. Therefore, in the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant, there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case
10. In addition to the original PCN penalty, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added 'costs' of £60
11. In the Particulars there is also a second add-on for purported 'legal representative costs of £50' on top of the vague £60, artificially hiking the sum to £239.44. This would be more than double recovery.
12. Given the fact that BW Legal boasted in Bagri v BW Legal Ltd of processing 'millions' of claims with an admin team (and only a handful of solicitors), the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities.
13. The defendant submits the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts, as part of their robo-claim litigation model, in an attempt at double recovery, circumventing the Small Claims costs rules. The Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process and BW Legal, the Claimant's legal representatives, appear to be in contravention of the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.
14. The Court is further invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.
15.The Claimant's Litigation department's continued contact and demands for money have represented a significant nuisance that is continuing to affect the Defendant's peace of mind and that of the Defendant's family, causing anxiety and distraction in the Defendant's work and daily life. The Claimant's Litigation department is misleading the Defendant about the law and continue to pester with continuous phone calls pretending they want the Defendant to telephone them so that they can help "resolve the account" as if this is a proven debt.
16. 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.
Statement of Truth:
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
Name XXX
Signature XXX
Date XXX
I have been following your advice and very much appreciate it. Nevertheless, I find that I now have to defend a county court claim filed by BW Legal on behalf of Britannia Parking. Sigh.
Summary:
Summary of case:
1. Regular user of a Britannia car park – usually for a full day. Vast majority of users will use this car park for a full day
2. Car park uses ANPR and allows online payment for parking, which appears to be preferred method of nearly all users (online payment even allowed to occur the next day) or via machine
3. On day of alleged offence, circumstances meant that I decided not to use the car park, and left the car park approx. 12 minutes after arrival
4. No signs indicating minimum stay or requirement to pay before a certain period of time had expired
5. Appealed to Britannia (but before I was aware of this useful forum) but no appeal to POPLA
6. Letter before claim was inadequate. My response to the LBC was ignored entirely. BW Legal moved straight to county court claim
Note that I have submitted an AOS and so know that I have until 16 March to file my defence. Other posts and threads indicate that a concise defence is best. I’d be grateful for feedback on below.
Defence:
************************************************** **********
Issue Date of Claim: 11/02/19
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: CXXXXXX
BETWEEN:
BRITANNIA PARKING (Claimant)
-and-
XXXX XXXXXX (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2.The PCN was issued at XXXXXX for an alleged stay of 12 minutes. The Claimant, who is the member of the British Parking Association (BPA), has failed to comply with Clause 13 of the BPA’s Code Of Practice’s General Condition with regards to grace periods that state:
“You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”
3. The defendant does not believe that the Claimant allowed a sufficient amount of time that could be deemed “a reasonable grace period” to enter and exit said carpark.
4. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a).
5. The PoC did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. These documents, and the ‘Letter before County Court Claim’ should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre Action Conduct.
6. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to “take stock”, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction.
7. On the basis of the above the defendant request the court strike out the claim for want of a cause of action. Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and, if these Particulars are filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.
8. Further, 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.
9. 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. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
8. The parking charge terms and the sum itself was not prominent and no contract was agreed. As such the facts and circumstances of this case can be fully distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, and fails to avoid falling foul of the penalty rule, due to a lack of any possibility to argue a 'legitimate interest' excuse.
9. Therefore, in the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant, there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case
10. In addition to the original PCN penalty, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added 'costs' of £60
11. In the Particulars there is also a second add-on for purported 'legal representative costs of £50' on top of the vague £60, artificially hiking the sum to £239.44. This would be more than double recovery.
12. Given the fact that BW Legal boasted in Bagri v BW Legal Ltd of processing 'millions' of claims with an admin team (and only a handful of solicitors), the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities.
13. The defendant submits the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts, as part of their robo-claim litigation model, in an attempt at double recovery, circumventing the Small Claims costs rules. The Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process and BW Legal, the Claimant's legal representatives, appear to be in contravention of the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.
14. The Court is further invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.
15.The Claimant's Litigation department's continued contact and demands for money have represented a significant nuisance that is continuing to affect the Defendant's peace of mind and that of the Defendant's family, causing anxiety and distraction in the Defendant's work and daily life. The Claimant's Litigation department is misleading the Defendant about the law and continue to pester with continuous phone calls pretending they want the Defendant to telephone them so that they can help "resolve the account" as if this is a proven debt.
16. 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.
Statement of Truth:
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
Name XXX
Signature XXX
Date XXX
0
Comments
-
Note that I have submitted an AOS and so know that I have until 16 March to file my defence.
Issue Date of Claim: 11/02/19
Hi and welcome.
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.
A couple of days more than you thought.
Only a few days to go, but 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.
- Sign it and date it.
- Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
- Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
- 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'.
- Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
- Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
- 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.
0 - Sign it and date it.
-
Many thanks KeithP - that's good to know. Looking forward to feedback from others too - I can see that BW Legal and Britannia have been particularly active in the last couple of months so recognise that all have been working hard to help people in similar situations to me.0
-
The marriage of BWLegal and Britannia has indeed become a blight in the community
The LBC which must comply to the PaP which in turn is designed for both parties to agree with.
It is not designed for either party to ignore.
In your case, you disputed the LBC and duly advised BWL but they ignored you and issued court papers.
Therefore the questions you asked, should now be asked by a judge as BWL has probably failed the PaP.
BWL has a habit of doing this.
There is also the case of grace periods as defined by the BPA
https://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods
Then there is the fake add-on of £60
This points to BWL losing this with the right judge.
You must include your cost schedule for when you win0 -
As this clearly falls within grace periods you should get your MP on board.
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.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Thank you beamerguy and The Deep. I will write to my MP and I will look through previous posts and threads for a good paragraph on the inadequate LBC (and fact that my response was ignored) to include in the defence.0
-
All - hoping for further advice, with thanks in advance.
Since submitting my defence (based on first post in this thread) and DQ I have had a response from bw legal. Some of their response refers to a 'copy and paste' exercise with some threatening language regards 'nonsensical content'
There is then an offer to make a reduced payment to bw legal within 14 days.
Has anyone else experienced similar? I'm assuming that advice will be to wait for court dates.0 -
Is the reduced payment to your satisfaction, i.e. £1 instead of £100? Sounds like BWL are not sure of their ground which is why they have sent the usual nonsense about a cut & paste defence - nothing wrong with them if they get the job done.0
-
All - hoping for further advice, with thanks in advance.
Since submitting my defence (based on first post in this thread) and DQ I have had a response from bw legal. Some of their response refers to a 'copy and paste' exercise with some threatening language regards 'nonsensical content'
There is then an offer to make a reduced payment to bw legal within 14 days.
Has anyone else experienced similar? I'm assuming that advice will be to wait for court dates.
'nonsensical content'
HAHA, and there speaks the masters of nonsensical copy and paste
Offering a deal within 14 days ??? Does that mean they realise that their case is flawed ??? Does it mean they want to discontinue0 -
Thanks for quick replies. You have given me the hoped-for confidence to proceed to court dates. (And, incidentally, the reduced payment is about 25% of the total - so not to my satisfaction at all). Many thanks again0
-
Presumably you've now searched the forum for the word 'nonsensical' and found all the other posts about the same template letter?Some of their response refers to a 'copy and paste' exercise with some threatening language regards 'nonsensical content'
There is then an offer to make a reduced payment to bw legal within 14 days.
Has anyone else experienced similar?
In the Summer hols when there are less people around here to answer you, searching the forum is much better than posting and you will find actual posts about that actual letter and will be prepped for the searching you'll need to do later on in this scam.
PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards