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!
Britannia Parking/BW Legal County Court Claim
BJSF
Posts: 3 Newbie
Good morning. Firstly I would like to thank all contributors to the forum for their posts, I have spent many hours sifting through other cases. I have now received a claim form from the court, to which I have returned the AOS. The issue date is the 27th February, so I understand that I have 33 days from this date to file my defence.
A brief summary - Unfortunately nothing exciting here, my vehicle was parked in Southampton McDonalds car park (West Quay) last 21st March(2018) for a period of approximately 15 minutes. The signage in the car park stated 30 minutes free on the pay and display "price list" with an * next to the word free.
Approximately a month later, I received an NTK dated 20th April, with an £85 charge for "failing to obtain a valid 30 minute free ticket or purchase a valid ticket". There also appears in one of the photographs a yellow plastic wrapper affixed to the front windscreen of the vehicle, however this was not received by the driver.
I appealed, on a number of basis, including inadequate signage, no receipt of notice to driver received, requested landowner authority, stated that under POFA that the NTK as a first correspondence was too late to assert keeper authority. I also requested a POPLA code in the event that they refuse my appeal.
Britannia refused to even acknowledge my appeal or send a POPLA code, as they stated I had not replied in time (appeal was emailed to them on 2nd May, approximately 10 days after NTK received. They have also refused to send any of the documents or landowner agreements I have requested, so until they have issued the claim in court, I have largely ignored them.
I have read through a number of draft defences, and have so far come up with what is below. Any help or assistance is greatly appreciated, and if anyone thinks there is an angle I may have missed, I'd be much obliged if you can help.
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM NUMBER: ########
BETWEEN:
BRITANNIA PARKING GROUP LTD T/A BRITANNIA PARKING
-and-
**DEFENDENT**
DEFENCE:
1. The defendant denies that the claimant is entitled to the relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts are that the vehicle registration XXXXXXX of which the defendant is the registered keeper was parked in a marked space in West Quay Retail Park, Southampton for approximately 15 minutes between 0910 and 0925 on 21st March 2018.
3. A “Notice to Keeper” was issued on 20th April, some 31 days after the period of parking had ended. This states that a “Parking Charge Notice – Notice to Driver” was issued to the windscreen of the vehicle, however no such notice was received by the driver. The defendant asserts that the lack of issuance of the Notice to driver therefore requires the Claimant to have issued a Notice to Keeper within 14 days of the day after the period of parking ended under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Paragraph 9 Subsection 5). Due to this failure the defendant asserts that there is no liability to the keeper for this charge.
4. 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.
5. 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. The prominent signage denotes between the hours of 0800 and 1800 that parking for a period up to 30 minutes is FREE.
6. The terms 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 tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is therefore denied that the claimant’s sign is capable of creating a binding contract.
7. The claimant is put to strict proof that is 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. Requests for a copy of the landowner agreement from the claimant have been ignored from the outset.
8. 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, £85. The claim includes an additional £60 for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
9. On receipt of the Notice to keeper, the defendant appealed the charge by email and requested a POPLA code in order to further an independent appeal. This was ignored and refused by the claimant without justification, thereby not allowing the appeal to be considered by an independent body they assert their authority under.
10. ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('Beavis') also related to a retail car park, but it is fully distinguished. In the instant case before the court, there was a 'concealed pitfall or trap' in the misleading signs which were emblazoned 'FIRST 30 MINUTES PARKING FREE'. The doctrine of contra proferentem must be applied in favour of the consumer, where terms are in any way ambiguous in their drafting or display.
11. There can be no 'commercial justification' nor legitimate interest in charging drivers who are patrons of the shops, for using the free parking time offered. Further, there was no overstay nor any mischief to deter, nor was there any misuse of a valuable parking space by the Defendant who parked in good faith.
12. In addition, there can be no cause of action in a parking charge case without a 'relevant obligation' and/or 'relevant contract' (the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 refers).
13. 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.
I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge.
A brief summary - Unfortunately nothing exciting here, my vehicle was parked in Southampton McDonalds car park (West Quay) last 21st March(2018) for a period of approximately 15 minutes. The signage in the car park stated 30 minutes free on the pay and display "price list" with an * next to the word free.
Approximately a month later, I received an NTK dated 20th April, with an £85 charge for "failing to obtain a valid 30 minute free ticket or purchase a valid ticket". There also appears in one of the photographs a yellow plastic wrapper affixed to the front windscreen of the vehicle, however this was not received by the driver.
I appealed, on a number of basis, including inadequate signage, no receipt of notice to driver received, requested landowner authority, stated that under POFA that the NTK as a first correspondence was too late to assert keeper authority. I also requested a POPLA code in the event that they refuse my appeal.
Britannia refused to even acknowledge my appeal or send a POPLA code, as they stated I had not replied in time (appeal was emailed to them on 2nd May, approximately 10 days after NTK received. They have also refused to send any of the documents or landowner agreements I have requested, so until they have issued the claim in court, I have largely ignored them.
I have read through a number of draft defences, and have so far come up with what is below. Any help or assistance is greatly appreciated, and if anyone thinks there is an angle I may have missed, I'd be much obliged if you can help.
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM NUMBER: ########
BETWEEN:
BRITANNIA PARKING GROUP LTD T/A BRITANNIA PARKING
-and-
**DEFENDENT**
DEFENCE:
1. The defendant denies that the claimant is entitled to the relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts are that the vehicle registration XXXXXXX of which the defendant is the registered keeper was parked in a marked space in West Quay Retail Park, Southampton for approximately 15 minutes between 0910 and 0925 on 21st March 2018.
3. A “Notice to Keeper” was issued on 20th April, some 31 days after the period of parking had ended. This states that a “Parking Charge Notice – Notice to Driver” was issued to the windscreen of the vehicle, however no such notice was received by the driver. The defendant asserts that the lack of issuance of the Notice to driver therefore requires the Claimant to have issued a Notice to Keeper within 14 days of the day after the period of parking ended under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Paragraph 9 Subsection 5). Due to this failure the defendant asserts that there is no liability to the keeper for this charge.
4. 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.
5. 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. The prominent signage denotes between the hours of 0800 and 1800 that parking for a period up to 30 minutes is FREE.
6. The terms 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 tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is therefore denied that the claimant’s sign is capable of creating a binding contract.
7. The claimant is put to strict proof that is 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. Requests for a copy of the landowner agreement from the claimant have been ignored from the outset.
8. 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, £85. The claim includes an additional £60 for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
9. On receipt of the Notice to keeper, the defendant appealed the charge by email and requested a POPLA code in order to further an independent appeal. This was ignored and refused by the claimant without justification, thereby not allowing the appeal to be considered by an independent body they assert their authority under.
10. ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('Beavis') also related to a retail car park, but it is fully distinguished. In the instant case before the court, there was a 'concealed pitfall or trap' in the misleading signs which were emblazoned 'FIRST 30 MINUTES PARKING FREE'. The doctrine of contra proferentem must be applied in favour of the consumer, where terms are in any way ambiguous in their drafting or display.
11. There can be no 'commercial justification' nor legitimate interest in charging drivers who are patrons of the shops, for using the free parking time offered. Further, there was no overstay nor any mischief to deter, nor was there any misuse of a valuable parking space by the Defendant who parked in good faith.
12. In addition, there can be no cause of action in a parking charge case without a 'relevant obligation' and/or 'relevant contract' (the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 refers).
13. 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.
I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge.
0
Comments
-
IMO, if this does get in front of a judge they will cash and burn. Complain to your MP, they are trying to scam you.
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 received The Royal Assent today.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Looks to have all the usual defence points recommended by Bargepole and Coupon-mad plus the specific ones to suit your case.0
-
With a Claim Issue Date of 27th February, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 1st April 2019 to file your Defence.I have now received a claim form from the court, to which I have returned the AOS. The issue date is the 27th February, so I understand that I have 33 days from this date to file my defence.
That's nearly two weeks away. Loads of time to produce a good Defence, and it is good to see you are not leaving 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.
-
Thanks for your responses. Before I file my defence does anyone see any glaring omissions or anything that needs taking out?0
-
Have submitted my defence so it is in plenty of time. Will update as and when any developments happen.0
-
Have you complained to your MP yet?You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0
-
When I had issues with this operator and car park back in February, I emailed both Southampton MP's. One is Labour, the other Tory, so no favouritism there.
Give him his due, the Tory replied quite promptly pointing me towards the recent discussions in the House regarding the Parking (Code of practice) Act.
To date, the Labour guy has been silent.
Guess he needs to be told which side of the fence to come down off.0 -
The Labour MP is Alan Whitehead, yes? I'm surprised he hasn't responded. He lived in Portswood for some time as I recall so you'd think he have some glimmer of interest in this (increasingly notorious) car park.
I would try again, enlightening him about the current state of play at the Portswood Centre Car Park i.e. Britannia currently appear to be operating without a contract. See post 26 particularly on this thread:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5975753/portswood-centre-britannia-and-land-management&highlight=car&page=2#topofpage
I know that the parking event occurred before the contract expired, but the way things are going it would appear that Britannia are still scamming motorists without any authority to do so whatsoever. All the more reason for an MP to show that there's more to life than Brexit.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards