Britania Parking PCN - Bournemouth

Icicle_Boy

Dear all,

Have received a County Court Claim Form after ignoring all previous correspondence from Britannia Parking Group. I have responded to the claim on the moneyclaim.gov.uk website and have requested a SAR, which I have received.

The alleged offence took place in December 2018 at the Exeter Park Road, Bournemouth Car Park. I have read a previous thread on this car park, which is basically a derelict building site, and there is no agreement for the landowner to allow Britannia to issue PCNs.

The problem I have is that I can not recall the type of ticket machine which is in operation at this car park. Is it a cash/card payment machine? do you have to put in your car reg details? For the alleged offence I could not get a ticket when I parked my car, so would be grateful for anyone who can recall the method of payment at this car park please. URGENT

Coupon-mad

You don't need to know the method of payment if you recall that the machine wasn't working, that's enough to work on for a defence.

I have responded to the claim on the moneyclaim.gov.uk website

Do you mean you have done the acknowledgement only and not started the defence/put anything in that box?

What's the issue date of the N1 claim (top right)?

Icicle_Boy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You don't need to know the method of payment if you recall that the machine wasn't working, that's enough to work on for a defence.

Do you mean you have done the acknowledgement only and not started the defence/put anything in that box?

What's the issue date of the N1 claim (top right)?

Thanks for the advice on the machine. Issue date on the N1 is 13 May. I responded on-line at moneyyclaim.gov.uk on 29 May, requested a SAR, which I received on 31 May, so now working on my defence. My better half took a photograph of the machine but unfortunately she deleted it months ago.

I have not put anything in the defence box thus far!

The_Deep

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so complain to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Icicle_Boy

Brilliant forum by the way and much appreciated. I wonder how some elderly/vulnerable person would deal with this scam. Makes my blood boil!
If it's ok, I will post my defence (after reading all the examples), to enable the experts to make sure it is ok? Thanks for all the information

Coupon-mad

Yep we like looking at defences, where people have based them on the forum examples and researched it well. Happy to help.

KeithP

Icicle_Boy wrote: »

Issue date on the N1 is 13 May. I responded on-line at moneyyclaim.gov.uk on 29 May.

I have not put anything in the defence box thus far!

Most important - Do not put anything in the Defence box.

With a Claim Issue Date of 13th May, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 17th June 2019 to file your Defence.

That's two weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. 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'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
   
7. 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.

Icicle_Boy

Thanks again. It will give me something to do whilst the other half watches Love Island!

Icicle_Boy

Can someone have a quick look at my defence please? I am going down the route of not identifying the driver as I cant find any defences for the machine was not working!

I had thought I had posted this over the weekend but it's not on here!!! Got to be sent off by 4.00pm today!


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: CXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

Britannia Parking Group (Claimant)

-and-

………………. (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE STATEMENT
________________________________________

... and at the end, should say:

"I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true."

With a signature and date below
1) It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident, although the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

2) There is no Evidence of the alleged vehicle being parked in the car park at Exeter Park Road, Bournemouth – The NTK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements

The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:"When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorized way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorized. A date and timestamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

The images included on the NtK contain two close-up license plate images and two images of the car manoeuvring at the either the entrance or exit of the car park.

None of the images show the vehicle parked in the car park. Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract.

3) The signs in the car park at Exeter Park Road, Bournemouth are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. 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.

4) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. Britannia Parking Group Ltd (No 08182990) issued the NTK, but the “Landowner” contract is with Britannia Parking Services Ltd (No 08187238), which is a different company. Therefore, there is no evidence that Britannia Parking Group are authorised by the landowner to issue PCNs/NTKs.
5) The Claimant’s representatives, BW Legal have artificially inflated the value of the Claim. The Defendant submits the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; that these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts.
a. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”.
b. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has increased.
6) As previously stated, Britannia Parking Group are not the lawful occupier of the land. The Defendant has reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.
a. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the
landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
b. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a
vehicle parking at the location in question
c. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge
d. The Particulars of Claim are deficient in establishing whether the claim is brought in trespass. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis vs Parking Eye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

7) From the defendant’s initial investigations there is no planning consent to operate this site (Exeter Park Road, Bournemouth) as a car park, so there is legal standing for issuing PCNs.
8) 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 £100. The claim includes an additional legal cost of £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at maximising revenue for the pursuing parties. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.4. It is denied that:

9) It is denied by the defendant, that a contract was formed, that there was any agreement to pay a parking charge.
10) 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 a true course of action. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims.

11) 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

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 Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

14) The Defendant invites the court to dismiss this claim out as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under Practice Direction 16, set out by the Ministry of Justice and also Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under 16.4 and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

15) In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and should be disallowed.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

beamerguy

PARAGRAPH # 8

Point the judge to this ...

ABUSE OF PROCESS
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75930070#Comment_75930070

Icicle_Boy

Thanks for this, will obviously insert this into my defence.
Is the defence of not knowing who was the driver a reasonable defence or should the case be fought on the ticket machine not working?