Britannia/BW Legal court claim defense for comment

Coupon-mad

'No ques was given'? What? Must be a typo.

Do I have to include copies of the letters with all different company numbers etc... and my bank statement with my alternative parking payment, or just bring them with me on the day?

You must file (with the court) and serve (to BW Legal) everything in advance.

Egbert_Nobacon

Can’t see anything challenging on Byelaws assuming the driver hasn’t been identified.

Also the excellent ABUSE OF PROCESS quote by Coupon-mad


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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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:

The DJ stated:-
''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...''

- 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.

- 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.

James__

OK Witness statement etc all sent first class.


I printed parts of SAR requests and the BPA code of conduct and I got photocopies of various letters and highlighted parts which I thought were relevant.


I added in parts to my statement of the excellently written answer above from Egbert.



I'll keep my focus on it and try to go with as much of a clear story as possible in my head and things to relate to.


I'll make sure too that I can go and if the judge calls me a joker and gives me a ticking off for not just coughing up in the first place I can hear them out and not get mad.


Fingers crossed for the 2nd of August!

Le_Kirk

James__ wrote: »

OK Witness statement etc all sent first class.

Did you ask for and receive a free certificate of posting?

James__

Hi Le_Kirk



Yeah.


I have proof of postage receipts for everything I have sent to the court and to BW.

Mrs44474

James i believe we got screwed over in the same car park! I’m at a similar stage to you also.

If you look online there are SO many reviews for harbour car park and complaints of how the machines weren’t working resulting in a ticket!

Shame we can’t help each other in some way!?

James__

Hi Becky,


Hey thanks for writing, yes I think 'car-trap' is a better name for that place!


Where are you at, do you have a thread going here?



I have seen some stuff like this - https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/cornwall-dad-who-took-long-2896164


Could you send me a link or two to what you have found perhaps.


You getting in touch and sharing feels pretty helpful to me, I'm in court in four days and it's not exactly what I'm used to!

beamerguy

James__ wrote: »

Hi Becky,


Hey thanks for writing, yes I think 'car-trap' is a better name for that place!


Where are you at, do you have a thread going here?



I have seen some stuff like this - https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/cornwall-dad-who-took-long-2896164


Could you send me a link or two to what you have found perhaps.


You getting in touch and sharing feels pretty helpful to me, I'm in court in four days and it's not exactly what I'm used to!

James, did you add as Becky about abuse of process ???

James__

Hi Beamer,


Sorry, I don't quite understand.

beamerguy

James__ wrote: »

Hi Beamer,


Sorry, I don't quite understand.

If you have been following this forum then you should have read
this
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal&highlight=abuse+of+p