My defence discloses no reasonable grounds [CPR 3.4]

waamo

No need to "reach out" you can't touch us through a screen. Just ask instead.

Essentially they are asking for all the paperwork you want to use. Everything must be in by that date, all your evidence, photographs, witness statement etc. If you want to use it then it must be there.

DoaM

The other side need to do the same ... make sure you note when you receive their evidence as they have a tendency to file late. (And judges seem to let them get away with it).

Coupon-mad

UberThere wrote: »

Hi Guys,

I have an update on this one, and wanted to reach out for advice. I have now received my hearing letter which will be held in December, and have point 6 in the letter to address for now

6) Each party must deliver to the other party and to the court office copies of all documents on which that party intends to rely at the hearing no later than 4pm x November 2019

- Which documents should I prepare for this?
- Also are there any issues representing myself?

The claimant, Britannia Parking have until mid November to pay the court fee / 'file a properly completed application', my presumption is that they will do this, and I should prepare for the hearing in December.

Thanks in advance

What is unclear from the NEWBIES thread post #2 all about this WS & evidence stage, with examples? We hope you were ready for this, and ready and expecting their own WS, and already knowing what it will include (from having read other Britannia claim threads, you will have seen their standard form of WS, we hope).

What people should not do is go away for months then come back each time they get a letter, having not read the NEWBIES thread or other threads like your own. Don't be that person who loses because they only read their own thread!

Lecture over, now hop to the NEWBIES thread and get reading the examples of WS/evidence!

UberThere

Thank you! Just reading through everything on the thread now, and will dig deeper regarding the WS & evidence stage

I have a question about the information, my ticket was given to me as I input the registration number wrong into the parking system by 1 letter I believe.

But I dont know how I can prove that, or if indeed i should, or should go down the same routes as suggested in the post

Le_Kirk

You could try submitting a SAR to the PPC asking for data from the PDT concerning any VRM close to yours and around about the time that you inputted your VRM into their faulty keypad. You might not get it (they will hide behind data protection) but you could mention it in the WS that you have asked in an attempt at preventing a waste of the court's time. Did you put anything in your defence about faulty keypad or the PDT misreading your keyed in VRM?

Fosh

I would also have it delivered as late as possible whilst not missing the deadline. It gives the opposition less time to know what they're up against.


They may then send a supplementary WS, but worst case you're creating more work for the people who are trying to scam you.

UberThere

I have done exactly this, submitted an SAR to the PPC requesting data data on that date at that car park with reg number starting the same 4 alphanumerics. Let's see if the come back to me.

I didn't put anything in my initial defence but when a letter came back regarding [CPR 3.4] I put it in the details there, requesting for this information to be seen.

Coupon-mad

It's Britannia, who are in the BPA, so if you think this was about a single digit keying error, go and read the POPLA Annual Report 2018 (Google it) to see what the BPA say about that! You need that page in evidence.

You could even send a copy to Britannia and their solicitors in a pushy email designed to get the case discontinued, urging them to drop the case or declare to you and show evidence, if you are wrong and that this is not just a simple keying error matter.

Also as it is Britannia you do of course need the wording about the fake added £60 costs that I am so bored typing about that I am going to stop...after all, this is mentioned in EVERY defence thread that's not ParkingEye and we expect that newbies have been reading a shedload of recent defences and WS examples, not just those linked in the NEWBIE thread.

UberThere

I've pulled together my WS from looking over the forum, it reads as follows:

In the County Court at XXXXX
Claim No. XXXXXXXX
Between
XXXXXXXX (Claimant)
and
XXXXXXXX (Defendant)

---

Witness Statement

---

1. I am [Name], of [Address], [Postcode], the Defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:

2. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

3. On [DATE], I parked my vehicle registration no [Reg Number] in the [Car Park Name] car park. Britania Parking are arguing I was bound by unknown terms creating a contractual charge, yet this £60 was not a term known or agreed at the point of making the contract.

4. I did park in this car park but completed the required information on the keypad as instructed. I made reasonable endeavours and believed I entered my VRN correctly.

5. Britania Parking are required to make stringent checks before issuing a PCN, which should certainly avoid a PCN being issued for such as a close match VRN.

6. Britania Parking are in the BPA, whos CoP tells operators to cancel parking charge notices, where it is that the parking charge had been caused by a simple keying error. *Attach POPLA annual report 2018

7. I have requested an SAR from the Claimant to which they part responded, excluding list of vehicle registration number log beginning XXXX... on [Date] at [Car Park]
*Attach SAR request and response

8. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Signature
Date

---

I have a couple of questions:
- In my original Defence I wrote the more generic defence as copied and pasted earlier, but now I’m talking about the keying error (which I do believe to be true)
- I haven’t listed out cases or doctrines which support my defence as most seem to be surrounding signage.
- What else do I need to add to my WS

Coupon-mad

6. Britania Parking are in the BPA, whos CoP tells operators to cancel parking charge notices, where it is that the parking charge had been caused by a simple keying error. *Attach POPLA annual report 2018

Go though and spell Britannia correctly throughout, and in the heading.

Don't attach the entire POPLA Annual Report, just the page about 'simple keying errors'.

7. I have requested an SAR from the Claimant to which they part responded, excluding list of vehicle registration number log beginning XXXX... on [Date] at [Car Park]
*Attach SAR request and response

Don't print & attach all of that, or any of it!

- In my original Defence I wrote the more generic defence as copied and pasted earlier, but now I’m talking about the keying error (which I do believe to be true)

That's OK; this is your chance to cover more bases than this, though.

- What else do I need to add to my WS

There are tips in the NEWBIES thread already.

Also add as evidence, a copy of the Beavis sign (Parking Prankster blog has it - Google it). Put it next to the PPC's sign in your case in one page document, as evidence that their sign does not meet the high bar set in Beavis, for 'a brief sign with the parking charge in the largest lettering'. The tariffs are in the large font but the penalty will not be, and won't have been near or on the screen of the 'point of sale' of the PDT machine, AT ALL...and that is where the contract was formed, after all.

And add in the two judgment pages from the Caernarfon and IOW cases as linked in post #14 of beamerguy's Abuse of Process thread, and include a synopsis of why a PPC cannot add the same costs twice. One of them is a BRITANNIA case!

And paras 98, 193 and 198 from the Beavis case and highlight the bits in those paras (yes, the words are there and pretty plain to read) that say the parking charge already more than covers all the costs of the business model and creates a profit, not a loss or damages.

And, put Britannia to proof of the machine readings, saying that parking firms comply with this request usually by redacting any clearly unconnected full VRNs on the list and leaving the other payments and mismatched/part VRNs or missing VRNs on the list, visible to the court.

And state that this claim is meritless and just about a technicality that it de minimis at best and not a matter for the courts, and certainly not on a par with the Supreme Court case law, as there was an absence of any 'legitimate interest and commercial justification' that was a feature of the unusual ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 case.

Add in something to also put them to proof of their landowner authority to issue petty PCNs for 'non-contraventions', and state you do not believe the landowner allows them to fine people who paid & displayed, only those who did not, or parked outside a bay, or overstayed. None of this happened and it is common ground that you paid all along and owe nothing.