BW Legal Letter of Claim (Britannia)

Lunar2019

beamerguy wrote: »

You may wish to expand on the £60 fake claim to the judge

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

Thanks Beamerguy, as mentioned to CM, my case is also Southampton so this is all really promising info. Do you think it worth including most of what CM added in the thread you shared here?

Lunar2019

Ok here we go - looking to submit my defence tomorrow morning if possible, so time for last round of comments if there are any. Hopefully all suggested changes have been incorporated below, thanks to all that have commented so far!

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXX

BETWEEN:

BRITANNIA PARKING LTD (Claimant)

-and-

XXX(Defendant)

DEFENCE

The Defendant is the Registered Keeper of vehicle registration number XXX. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the driver's alleged breach of contract, when visiting the XXX car park, on XXX between XXX and XXX, to collect a resident of XXX. The car park in question is the registered car park for residents of the adjacent apartments. The driver did not leave the car at any point, but used phone messages to communicate their presence to the resident. The Defendant appealed the PCN on a number of counts.

It is denied that a contractual agreement with the Claimant was entered into, whether express, implied or by conduct. The terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a waiting vehicle, and there is no large sign altering motorists to a limited waiting period. It is therefore denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract in these circumstances, and the implied signage ‘contract’ should not be used to form a legally binding agreement.

The Defendant would like to raise that the signage at the car park in question bears no mention of a grace period or waiting periods, which might reasonably be expected to be needed as this car park serves as both a public car park and a permit-controlled residents car park. It is only upon receipt of a PCN from the Claimant that the existence of a grace period of 10 minutes was stated. A driver engaged in the collection of residents has a legitimate and authorised reason to visit the car park, and no reason to alight their vehicle. The presumption that the vehicle in question was left unattended within the car park is factually incorrect.

Furthermore, there is no safe or legal alternative to wait in the proximity of the apartments. XXX Road is marked with double yellow lines and 24-hour bus lanes on both sides of the road. As dictated by the Road Traffic Regulations Act (1984, 27 (5)) and the Highway Code Waiting Restrictions, to wait on the roadside at the location of XXX would have been a contravention of a traffic regulation order. Given the lack of alternatives, and applying some common sense, there was no option but to await the resident within the car park. The Defendant has repeatedly drawn these matters to the Claimant’s attention, to no avail.

The Defendant also suggests that the 10 minutes apparently offered by the Claimant for a resident to vacate their property and journey down to the car park is discriminatory towards those of limited mobility or disability, or with luggage to transport. The 13.5 minutes of waiting in this instance is not an unreasonable amount of time, and in the absence of a prominently displayed ‘10 minutes waiting only’ sign, the Claimant should have allowed the Defendant’s first appeal when lodged.

In any case, the Claimant is put to strict proof that it had sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it had the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation in its own name on the material date.

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.

If the 'parking charge' (the first interpretation meaning the car park tariff payable for 13.5 minutes) was unpaid, then the sum 'owed' is a quantifiable figure of £2.00.

Instead, the Defendant received a PCN demanding £100, later increasing to £160 following a false £60 for ‘initial legal costs’. Any purported 'legal costs' are 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.

Following interest and a £50 legal representative cost a final claim of £XXX is more than double recovery, being vague and disingenuous and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.

The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. However, with no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this sum given the above facts, this Claimant should surely be fully aware that their claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail.

Differences in facts include but are not limited to:
the signs/terms were not prominent (grace periods being a 'misleading omission' on the signage), contrary to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (2008);
the Defendant did not ignore the PCN;
this was not a free car park which complicated the decision in Beavis; and
the PCN bore no resemblance to the advertised tariff.

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) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM) 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...''

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.

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.

The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

To summarise, it is denied that a contractual agreement with the Claimant was entered into, whether express, implied, or by conduct. 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. Any contravention of the insufficiently-signed terms and conditions, of which is denied, amounted to a waiting period of 3.5 minutes, which is itself arbitrary and inappropriate for the location. 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.

Lunar2019

Update: Defence submitted as it looks above!

Coupon-mad

Lunar2019 wrote: »

My case will also be Southampton so this is promising!! Thanks Coupon Mad!

You jammy person! :T

I hope your defence was numbered, per paragraph.

Lunar2019

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You jammy person! :T

I hope your defence was numbered, per paragraph.

Yes all numbered!

Have now received notification of transfer to Southampton following N180 return - keeping my eye on CEC16 thread also!

beamerguy

Lunar2019 wrote: »

Yes all numbered!

Have now received notification of transfer to Southampton following N180 return - keeping my eye on CEC16 thread also!

You will have seen this

Originally Posted by CEC16 View Post
UPDATE

Notice of hearing recieved for the 11th November 2019. Soton County Court 1030

It's all going to be very interesting

Lunar2019

Update: case withdrawn by BW legal earlier this year! 🥳 thanks all for your help along the way!

Le_Kirk

Good one, thanks for letting us know.  Weight off your mind.

beamerguy

Lunar2019 said:

Update: case withdrawn by BW legal earlier this year! 🥳 thanks all for your help along the way!

Yes, good stuff ..... BWLegal chickened out again