Brittania / Bw Legal - At Court stage

KeithP

socnet wrote: »

The words they used was "Penalty Charge Notice". See the image (I redacted the location).

This is a link to the picture. I'm a new user and can't post links, but hopefully you can understand how to access the URL: www. ibb.co/Z6vhHFB

https://ibb.co/Z6vhHFB

No, the words they used were "Parking Charge Notice".

socnet

Yes, you are correct of course. I must have got distracted when I typed it. I had to do it a few times because of the hyperlink problem.

socnet

Thank you all for your help so far. We are now at DQ stage. This is a recap:

The claimant is Britannia Parking.
They are represented by BW Legal
The particulars of claim are (some non-essential information is redacted):

"The Claimant's Claim is for the sum of £10x.xx being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on x/xx/2018 (Issue Date) at xx:xx:xx at xxxxxx. (Car park location)

The PCN relates to xxxxx (vehicle). The terms of the PCN alowed the Defendant 28 days from the Issue Date to pay the PCN, but the Defendant failed to do so. Despite demand having been made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.

The Claim also incudes Statutory Interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum, a daily rate of 0.02 from xx/xx/2018 to xx/xx/2019 being an amount of £x.xx.

The Claimant also claims £60.00 contractual costs pursuant to PCN Terms and Conditions."

Total claim = £1xx.xx + £25 (Court fee) + £50 (Legal representative's costs = £2xx.xx

--
My initial defence was a bit lame. As was the signage. I didn't see it. Not in the car park and not in the restaurant (I don't believe there was any at the time).

Previous suggestions largely centre around the signage, and getting support from the restaurant. I'm happy to pursue both, but first I need to make a response to the DQ. I only have like three days to get it back now because I was on holiday when the paperwork came. I can do it, but I need to be reasonably quick.

The Claimant's DQ was fairly bland. Looking through it they said:

They agree to mediation.
They didn't include a fee (section E).
The other boxes were basically all blank.

--

So what should I do for my DQ?

1) Should I agree to "mediation"? I know most posts here say it's a waste of time, but I am considering it for a couple of reasons:
a) The Claimant is still not responding to my SAR. The mediation could be an opportunity to confront them about this.
b) Mediation might allow more time to get witness statements and deal with the SAR.
c) Perhaps there are other reasons that I'm not aware of
2) Hearing Venue. I already asked in my defence to move it to my local court (also local to the parking location). I can enter this again. Am I likely to be successful in getting it moved? The current court (Northampton) would be a pain.
3) Anything else? There are no boxes to include more information, so should I include a letter? And include "interrogatories" about their claim? Or does that come later?

Thanks

Le_Kirk

Use THIS LINK to read the post by Bargepole all about how to complete the DQ and easily found if you look at the NEWBIE thread post # 2, which should be your Go TO place for any questions about the court aspect.

socnet

Thank you Le_Kirk and others. I have now read the link above. I still do have a couple of question that I would appreciate guidance on:

1) Should I agree to "mediation"? I know most posts here say it's a waste of time, but I am considering it for a couple of reasons:
a) The Claimant is still not responding to my SAR. The mediation could be an opportunity to confront them about this.
b) Mediation might allow more time to get witness statements and deal with the SAR.
c) Perhaps there are other reasons that I'm not aware of

2) Should I include a letter with my DQ? And include "interrogatories" about their claim? Is this a good opportunity? Someone earlier said it was.

Coupon-mad

Should I agree to "mediation"?

Bargepole makes it crystal clear - NO.

Mediation doesn't really add more time on and it's just disheartening and can be bullying.

If you want to see why we say NO, search the forum for Mediation Mary and read the oldest result where she was discussed!

socnet

Hi all

Here is a further update:
1) The court has transferred the case to my local court. I haven't been given a court date yet.
2) I have been to see the restaurant to see if they are prepared to support my case. I spoke to their manager at length. Actually, his response (verbal so far) are very disappointing. This is a summary. I have split them into good (supports my case) and bad (harms my case). Please tell me if you think I've got this wrong. I'm hoping/expecting him to write an email/statement that covers the good points only:

Neutral
N1) Parking control was put in place in Apr 18. The infringement occurred in Aug 18.
N2) The parking is "free" for 3 hours.

Good

G1) The reason for the parking control is because many non-patrons (of the restaurants on the estate) were parking there and taking the spaces.
G2) Initially they had many complaints though these have tailed off now.
G3) I can find many people moaning about the parking on TripAdvisor. These are all by people who paid the fine.
G4) Customers can get 6 hours parking
G5) The restaurant try to overturn parking fines, and are successful around 70% of the time. They haven't always been successful even in genuine cases, such as staff that are using a temporary vehicle (and not registering it).

Bad
B1) The current signage is quite extensive and has been the same since Apr 18.
B2) To get the "6 hour" parking you have to use the in-restaurant terminal.
B3) The manager thinks I'm at fault for not "seeing the signs", including ones in the restaurant. They also say that they have a habit of telling people. (I dispute that they told me or that I saw the signs. To me it doesn't seem reasonable that I would have ignored either).
B4) The signage to enter the car park appears to be quite bold (and apparently not changed).

Also, I've now received the SAR from Britannia. It's poor and there are clearly things missing, but I don't think this will really help me in court. Bwlegal haven't given me the SAR data yet.

I'm starting to think that my case isn't particularly strong now. The big problem that I've got is that I can't get the restaurant to confirm in writing that "patrons get 6 hours' parking". The manager keeps saying that it's "people who use the parking terminal" that get it.

And I am somewhat reliant on Bwlegal putting in a poor performance on the day, which isn't a great plan. Any thoughts? Please be realistic with me.

Thanks

socnet

Please can anyone help with this?

socnet

Please can anyone help with this?

NeilCr

Who, actually, owns the car park?

I see you said in your first post that it serves three restaurants. If the one you dined in doesn't own the car park then they cannot "instruct" Britannia - only ask them to cancel the ticket

I am no expert but a lot of these cases seem to hang on the adequacy of the signage. If it was poor in the car park, there were no signs in the restaurant and they didn't tell you about the terminal then I'd have thought you had a good case. From the outside looking in the fact that they put signs up in the restaurant and have altered the car park signs after you visited looks like a plus point for you.

Have the TA poor reviews diminished since the change in signage?