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/BW Legal court claim defense for comment
Options
James__
Posts: 35 Forumite
Dear all on the Forum,
I have spent a good long time on here researching my situation (wish I would have looked it up to start with before naively just sending off my first appeal and thinking it was just a common sense trivial thing to get over!). I want now to put up my court defense statement for comment if anyone is so kind to give their opinion.
Roughly my situation is this. I had the misfortune of choosing to try and park up a car park operated by Britannia. I attempted to buy tickets from several machines which not would accept card payment, I spoke with some other people who also didn't get the machines to work and then I left to find alternative parking. I got a ticket through as I had not displayed a valid ticket. My appeal was rejected by Britannia and later by POPLA as I had no evidence and had spent an 'unreasonable' amount of time trying to buy one and din;t phone them up to buy one either... Britannia say I was in the car park for 34 minutes, which I may have been, I wasn't in any hurry.
I put in a SAR with Britannia and asked them and BW to put it all on hold.. which they are being very formal and annoying about with the month long timescale. Interestingly I also put in a SAR request with POPLA, who answered straight away. I noticed that Britannias statement had absolutely nothing to do with me?! See section 9 on my defense. I also wrote to POPLA to try and get it overturned... couldn't hurt I thought? I also wrote to the car park owners to ask them to stop proceedings (should have done that first thing! doh) and also the local paper. No replies as yet. I'm not sure about saying all this cause I figure BW legals finest (?) are probably trolling this site, but heigh ho I feel I need to ask for some other opinions as I'm probably pretty crap at all this stuff.
Anyway, now BW Legal are taking me to court and here's my defense statement. I have registered myself with the court online and have a week left to get my defense in -
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx
BETWEEN:
Britannia car park jokers Ltd. (Claimant)
-and-
Mr X (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration ~~~, of which the Defendant was the registered keeper, entered and left the Harbour Carpark, Plymouth. They did not keep an account of the time and so can not either dispute or corroborate the evidence given as to the times. Several attempts were made to purchase a ticket, the Defendant found several machines unable to accept a payment, the Defendant spoke with other people who were also unable to purchase a ticket and also noted the car park was very empty and no other car had a displayed ticket, they then left the car park to seek alternative parking and contends they did so in a reasonable manner.
3. 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. (?)
4. 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.
5. Fluctuating and random charges. 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. On the 3.1.19 the Claimant states a balance of £145 due, on the 28.2.19 this amount is given at £149.72.
6. The Defendant thoroughly denies that the two machines they visited were able to take payment. The evidence given shows only two working machines (in a car park of this size visiting and attempting to make payment at 2 machines is reasonable to make the judgement the machines are not working and decide to move on), the grace period statement from the BPA does not cover this, only in that a ‘reasonable’ time must be given. The defendant believes they behaved in a reasonable manner at all times within the car park.
7. The Claimant's signage for phone payment in the event of machine unable to accept payment is inconspicuous as it is not observable by anyone using the ticket machine. This is not in accordance with or in the spirit of the BPA code of practice. It does not meet Lord Dennings ‘red hand rule’.
8. The Claimants statement of ‘If the driver has not purchased a valid ticket or left the car park by the time the 10 minute grace period has been reached, a Parking Charge Notice will be issued’, is not reasonable and is neither in accordance with or the spirit of the BPA code of practice.
9. POPLA appeal shows non diligence. The operators seems confused as to what they are pursuing as the case at appeal is for a wholly different incident. This complete failure negates the case at appeal. The assessor can not be displaying a balanced judgement.
10. At appeal the operator sought to increase the fine by stating signs ask for a £100.
11. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorization from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
12. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the Courts should be seen to support.
13. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims.
14. The Defendant believes the terms for such conduct is ‘robo claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to their significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant
15. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and is riddled with consistency.
I believe the facts contained in this Defense are true.
Name
Signature
Date
don't forget to file the evidence you will rely upon, which should at least include:
I have spent a good long time on here researching my situation (wish I would have looked it up to start with before naively just sending off my first appeal and thinking it was just a common sense trivial thing to get over!). I want now to put up my court defense statement for comment if anyone is so kind to give their opinion.
Roughly my situation is this. I had the misfortune of choosing to try and park up a car park operated by Britannia. I attempted to buy tickets from several machines which not would accept card payment, I spoke with some other people who also didn't get the machines to work and then I left to find alternative parking. I got a ticket through as I had not displayed a valid ticket. My appeal was rejected by Britannia and later by POPLA as I had no evidence and had spent an 'unreasonable' amount of time trying to buy one and din;t phone them up to buy one either... Britannia say I was in the car park for 34 minutes, which I may have been, I wasn't in any hurry.
I put in a SAR with Britannia and asked them and BW to put it all on hold.. which they are being very formal and annoying about with the month long timescale. Interestingly I also put in a SAR request with POPLA, who answered straight away. I noticed that Britannias statement had absolutely nothing to do with me?! See section 9 on my defense. I also wrote to POPLA to try and get it overturned... couldn't hurt I thought? I also wrote to the car park owners to ask them to stop proceedings (should have done that first thing! doh) and also the local paper. No replies as yet. I'm not sure about saying all this cause I figure BW legals finest (?) are probably trolling this site, but heigh ho I feel I need to ask for some other opinions as I'm probably pretty crap at all this stuff.
Anyway, now BW Legal are taking me to court and here's my defense statement. I have registered myself with the court online and have a week left to get my defense in -
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx
BETWEEN:
Britannia car park jokers Ltd. (Claimant)
-and-
Mr X (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration ~~~, of which the Defendant was the registered keeper, entered and left the Harbour Carpark, Plymouth. They did not keep an account of the time and so can not either dispute or corroborate the evidence given as to the times. Several attempts were made to purchase a ticket, the Defendant found several machines unable to accept a payment, the Defendant spoke with other people who were also unable to purchase a ticket and also noted the car park was very empty and no other car had a displayed ticket, they then left the car park to seek alternative parking and contends they did so in a reasonable manner.
3. 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. (?)
4. 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.
5. Fluctuating and random charges. 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. On the 3.1.19 the Claimant states a balance of £145 due, on the 28.2.19 this amount is given at £149.72.
6. The Defendant thoroughly denies that the two machines they visited were able to take payment. The evidence given shows only two working machines (in a car park of this size visiting and attempting to make payment at 2 machines is reasonable to make the judgement the machines are not working and decide to move on), the grace period statement from the BPA does not cover this, only in that a ‘reasonable’ time must be given. The defendant believes they behaved in a reasonable manner at all times within the car park.
7. The Claimant's signage for phone payment in the event of machine unable to accept payment is inconspicuous as it is not observable by anyone using the ticket machine. This is not in accordance with or in the spirit of the BPA code of practice. It does not meet Lord Dennings ‘red hand rule’.
8. The Claimants statement of ‘If the driver has not purchased a valid ticket or left the car park by the time the 10 minute grace period has been reached, a Parking Charge Notice will be issued’, is not reasonable and is neither in accordance with or the spirit of the BPA code of practice.
9. POPLA appeal shows non diligence. The operators seems confused as to what they are pursuing as the case at appeal is for a wholly different incident. This complete failure negates the case at appeal. The assessor can not be displaying a balanced judgement.
10. At appeal the operator sought to increase the fine by stating signs ask for a £100.
11. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorization from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
12. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the Courts should be seen to support.
13. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims.
14. The Defendant believes the terms for such conduct is ‘robo claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to their significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant
15. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and is riddled with consistency.
I believe the facts contained in this Defense are true.
Name
Signature
Date
don't forget to file the evidence you will rely upon, which should at least include:
0
Comments
-
Hi and welcome.
Do you have a County Court Claim Form?
If so, what is the Issue Date on that Claim Form?
Did it come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?0 -
Hi KeithP
Hey thank you.
Issue date 28.2.19, on the letter. I have it in writing from the CCBC that the date of service is 5.3.19.
Return address on the back is P.O. box 300, Northampton, NN1 2TX. It says 'In the COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE' in the top right. I think I read somewhere on here that that means it's kosher?0 -
Curious.
Britannia have just now sent through their SAR.0 -
With a Claim Issue Date of 28th February, you had until Tuesday 19th March to do the Acknowledgement of Service.Issue date 28.2.19, on the letter. I have it in writing from the CCBC that the date of service is 5.3.19.
Return address on the back is P.O. box 300, Northampton, NN1 2TX. It says 'In the COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE' in the top right. I think I read somewhere on here that that means it's kosher?
I am going to assume that you did do the AoS by that date. Please confirm.
Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 2nd April 2019 to file your Defence.
That's one week away. Not long now, 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.
-
I'd suggest a change to this wording:9. The Claimant submitted evidence for the Defendant's POPLA appeal which related to a completely different event relating to someone's else's car, which demonstrates their lack of due diligence and a breach of data protection. This complete failure negated the POPLA decision and meant the case was not properly considered. The Defendant was not made aware of this until POPLA recently disclosed the information they held, after the Defendant's SAR.
Remove this; it's normal that the PCN is £100 (no bribe discount) once at POPLA stage and this is not a point of defence:10. At appeal the operator sought to increase the fine by stating signs ask for a £100.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 -
Harbour Carpark, Plymouth
Bye laws?CAVEAT LECTOR0 -
With a Claim Issue Date of 28th February, you had until Tuesday 19th March to do the Acknowledgement of Service.
I am going to assume that you did do the AoS by that date. Please confirm.
Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 2nd April 2019 to file your Defence.
That's one week away. Not long now, but don't leave it to the very last minute.
Thanks Keith, yes I have registered the AoS. Very basic looking website I thought.0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »I'd suggest a change to this wording:
Remove this; it's normal that the PCN is £100 (no bribe discount) once at POPLA stage and this is not a point of defence:
Hi CouponM and thank you for joining in.
Thank you very much for your rewording of point number 9! Much better. I have updated it on my statement.
r.e. the raise to £100. I thought it was evidence of more lack of diligence on Britannias behalf? No signs read £100. I guess it was left over on their template letter and they didn't change it. Your right though, it doesn't stand well as a point on it's own.0 -
They must do? Are you SURE? Parking Charges are not normally as 'low' as £60.No signs read £100.
Rachity means the fact it's a Harbour Car Park might mean it falls within the Plymouth Harbour Byelaws map, so check that online.
Only relevant if you never said who was driving.
Harbour Byelaws mean that the land is not 'relevant land' as defined in the POFA. Search the forum for a couple of keywords to save us typing it all again!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
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards