We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
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!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
BWLegal Claim form Received - DEFENCE
GeoffTheCat
Posts: 16 Forumite
Hello all,
I received not one but two claim forms the county court in Northampton, regarding two apparent PCN'S which have never been received, requested by BWLegal on behalf of Britannia Parking. These were for two apparent parking infringements back in May 2018!! I've read the NEWBIE Thread and a few others and have started my defence draft.
Would someone be so kind to read it over and tell me where I might going wrong or make some suggestions
Also intend to apply to defend my case via the online portal, do I still to send a paper copy and is it necessary to provide m employment details and finances?
defence draft (1)
N THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: XXXXXX
BETWEEN:
XXXXX (Claimant)
-and-
XXXXX (Defendant)
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at PLYMOUTH – CHARLES CROSS PL4 0BG (18/05/2018)
1.1. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.
1.2. The Defendant has not received prior notification of PCN from claimant until 07/06/2019 via claims form received by County Court Business centre, Northampton.
1.3. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand the Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.
1.4. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct.
2. At the time of the alledged claim the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXXXXXX which is the subject of these proceedings. The Defendant is no longer the registered keeper.
2.1 It is the assumption of the defendant, that the claimant's claim referers to the use of the free parking bays for XXXXXXXX, whilst in the store.
3. The Claimant is put to strict proof of any breach and of their decision-making in deciding to issue a PCN and why, as well as the reasoning behind trying to collect an unconscionable £167.58 plus costs and fees, one years later. If it is the case that this sum went unpaid, which is denied. The fact is, this PCN was issued (without notification) in breach of the Claimant's Trade Body Code of Practice ('CoP')
4. 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 breached any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
5. Furthermore, it is denied that the claimant's signage at the time set out clear terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.
5.1. Signage read ' XXXXXXX FREE PARKING, CUSTOMERS ONLY 1 HOUR' with no further terms. This has subcequenty been updated on investigation 08/06/2019
6. On speaking with the store manager, the defendant was informed that the allocated parking in question was provided by the landowner for free use for XXXXXXXX customers by local agreement between the two parties.
6.1. In this case, the Claimant is put to strict proof that it had sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it had the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation in its own name on the material date. The Claimant appears to be a contractor on an agent/principal basis operating under a bare licence to erect signs and collect monies from the machines, and no doubt, to issue PCNs - but 'on behalf of' the landowner, which would give them no authority or standing.
6.2. Differences in facts include but are not limited to: The signs/terms were inadaquent ; non issue of PCN breached the BPA CoP and that the Defendant did not Receieve the PCN or that a PCN bore no resemblance to the advertised tariff. As such, this case is fully distinguished in all respects of clear notices proclaiming brief terms and an agreed contractual sum that did not impact on the rights and interests of drivers at the time of the alleged PCN.
7. In addition to the PCN penalty, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added 'costs' of £60, which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.
7.1. Suddenly in the Particulars there is also a second add-on for purported 'legal representative costs of £50' on top of the vague £60, artificially hiking the sum to £242.58. This would be more than double recovery, being vague and disingenuous and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.
7.3. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs. s.
7.4. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.
8. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
Name
Signature
Date
Many thanks in advance
I received not one but two claim forms the county court in Northampton, regarding two apparent PCN'S which have never been received, requested by BWLegal on behalf of Britannia Parking. These were for two apparent parking infringements back in May 2018!! I've read the NEWBIE Thread and a few others and have started my defence draft.
Would someone be so kind to read it over and tell me where I might going wrong or make some suggestions
Also intend to apply to defend my case via the online portal, do I still to send a paper copy and is it necessary to provide m employment details and finances?
defence draft (1)
N THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: XXXXXX
BETWEEN:
XXXXX (Claimant)
-and-
XXXXX (Defendant)
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at PLYMOUTH – CHARLES CROSS PL4 0BG (18/05/2018)
1.1. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.
1.2. The Defendant has not received prior notification of PCN from claimant until 07/06/2019 via claims form received by County Court Business centre, Northampton.
1.3. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand the Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.
1.4. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct.
2. At the time of the alledged claim the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXXXXXX which is the subject of these proceedings. The Defendant is no longer the registered keeper.
2.1 It is the assumption of the defendant, that the claimant's claim referers to the use of the free parking bays for XXXXXXXX, whilst in the store.
3. The Claimant is put to strict proof of any breach and of their decision-making in deciding to issue a PCN and why, as well as the reasoning behind trying to collect an unconscionable £167.58 plus costs and fees, one years later. If it is the case that this sum went unpaid, which is denied. The fact is, this PCN was issued (without notification) in breach of the Claimant's Trade Body Code of Practice ('CoP')
4. 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 breached any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
5. Furthermore, it is denied that the claimant's signage at the time set out clear terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.
5.1. Signage read ' XXXXXXX FREE PARKING, CUSTOMERS ONLY 1 HOUR' with no further terms. This has subcequenty been updated on investigation 08/06/2019
6. On speaking with the store manager, the defendant was informed that the allocated parking in question was provided by the landowner for free use for XXXXXXXX customers by local agreement between the two parties.
6.1. In this case, the Claimant is put to strict proof that it had sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it had the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation in its own name on the material date. The Claimant appears to be a contractor on an agent/principal basis operating under a bare licence to erect signs and collect monies from the machines, and no doubt, to issue PCNs - but 'on behalf of' the landowner, which would give them no authority or standing.
6.2. Differences in facts include but are not limited to: The signs/terms were inadaquent ; non issue of PCN breached the BPA CoP and that the Defendant did not Receieve the PCN or that a PCN bore no resemblance to the advertised tariff. As such, this case is fully distinguished in all respects of clear notices proclaiming brief terms and an agreed contractual sum that did not impact on the rights and interests of drivers at the time of the alleged PCN.
7. In addition to the PCN penalty, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added 'costs' of £60, which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.
7.1. Suddenly in the Particulars there is also a second add-on for purported 'legal representative costs of £50' on top of the vague £60, artificially hiking the sum to £242.58. This would be more than double recovery, being vague and disingenuous and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.
7.3. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs. s.
7.4. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.
8. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
Name
Signature
Date
Many thanks in advance
0
Comments
-
Don't send it via the on-line portal. If you post the issue date from your claim form, KeithP will be along to give you your deadlines and some useful information about where to and how to submit your defence.
At first reading defence looks good but just check out some of the 17 example defences in post # 2 of the NEWBIE thread. You can certainly add to your point about the additional costs (7.1 - 7.4) by using the POFA restrictions.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 £££. The claim includes an additional ££, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.0 -
Thanks Le_Kirk
issue date 3rd June 20190 -
With a Claim Issue Date of 3rd June, you have until Monday 24th June to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.GeoffTheCat wrote: »Issue date 3rd June 2019
Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 8th July 2019 to file your Defence.
That's a month 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.
- 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 "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
- Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep 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.
-
So today I requested a SAR from Britannia (copied from another helpful user) as below
Dear Sir or Madam
Subject Access Request
I am writing to you so that I can verify that my personal data has been lawfully obtained and processed in relation to any PCN.
Please supply the information about me that I am entitled to under the Data Protection Act 2018 and relating to:
•Any and all Documents mentioning my name or any details relating to myself i.e. vehicle registration/contact details/ PCN number etc
•Full email history and the emails mentioning PCN number, myself or vehicle registration/contact details etc
•All interaction made with any other private company where data regarding any PCN number/vehicle/details have been discussed.
•A list of all telephone calls made where any PCN or details are mentioned and details of what was said.
•Of Particular interest is any documentation trail showing how and who has sold/passed my details relevant to any PCN or personal details.
•Copies of all documents/email/ or communication by any other means
•Full disclosure of all information held about myself, my details and or my vehicle
•Details relating to what information is viewable by any external companies handling mail on your behalf, i.e. are envelopes sealed prior to being issued to mail handling companies used if applicable.
•I request a full itinerary of what happens and what stages my data is processed under whilst in your database
•Proof of the rights you have to manage my data
It may be helpful for you to know that data protection law requires you to respond to a request for data within one calendar month and that under new GDPR Data Protection Act 2018 no fee is payable.
If you do not normally deal with these requests, please pass this letter to your Data Protection Officer, or relevant staff member. If you need advice on dealing with this request, the Information Commissioner’s Office can assist you. Its website is ico.org.uk or it can be contacted on 0303 123 1113.
Yours faithfully0 -
They responded very quickly with what appears to be their own cut n paste job! Thoughts ?
Dear Sir/Madam,
We have received your Subject Access Request, under ICO guidelines we have one calendar month to respond.
Please be aware we will send a copy of all personal data we hold only. If you have made a request for any additional information which does not qualify as personal data, please see below.
YOU’RE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Landowner agreement - You are not entitled to business sensitive information, it will only be supplied at court, as evidence and not before.
Contract with the driver - The contract is on the signage in the car park. A copy of the signage will be provided as evidence at court.
Machine reports - You are not entitled to transactions which do not relate to you, you will be provided with your transaction only. We are under no obligation to provide you with anything further.
Picture packs - A copy of the signage will be provided as evidence at court.
Your SAR request is free, however please be aware we are able to charge for additional copies and any requests for information which does not qualify as personal data. ICO guidelines advise we are able to charge a reasonable administration fee, which is £10.
Please send a cheque payable to Britannia Parking to the following address: Data Protection Officer, County Gates House, 7th Floor, 300 Poole Road, Poole, BH12 1AZ.
Include a list of the additional information you require and the PCN number/s. Once the cheque has cleared we will action your request. We will only send additional information which is not business sensitive.
Please refer to the ICO website for further information: ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/your-right-of-access/
If you do not wish to pay £10, we are under no obligation to provide you with the information, your only options is to wait until this matter progresses to court, when it will be adduced as evidence.
Once you are in receipt of your SAR, all additional correspondence regarding the request for additional information will not be responded to, unless payment of £10 is received.
Regards
Data Protection Team
Britannia Parking0 -
File it and wait patiently for a response to your Subject Access Request.0
-
Thanks KeithP0
-
It's an auto-response, we've seen it before but the 'Dear Sir/Madam' tells you that. There's no need to post an auto response here.They responded very quickly with what appears to be their own cut n paste job! Thoughts ?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 -
Yes, just wait to see what they do produce.
Britannia has been off the rails for some time now, no doubt with help from their legal mates
This week, a case on here could well cause a problem for Britannia and BWLegal.
Thanks to Bargepole, it has been highlighted on here ....
BWLEGAL ADD ON A FAKE £60 ?
In addition to the 'parking charge', the Claimant's legal representatives, BWLegal, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £60 which has not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery.
12th June 2019
Southampton court threw out a case from BWLegal because of Abuse of Process regarding the fake BWLegal add-on. READ ALL ABOUT IT .... POST #10
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75917866#Comment_75917866
The case was dismissed by a District Judge with no court appearance, for ABUSE OF PROCESS
Has this District judge passed this information to all courts ?
It means that whatever Britannia produce in court via BWLegal, if they continue with this ABUSE OF PROCESS, the case could be thrown out without further reference0 -
£243 is far more than the Law allows for this sort of claim. The down market solicitors whom the PPCs engage know this, but, because they are solicitors, know that a lot of people will pay up.
It is in fact double charging and non claimable debt collectors' add ons. Imo, this is fraud, or, at the very least, improper conduct.
Were this to get to court and they won, the judge would be unlikely to award the claimant more than £175 - £200.
I urge you to report this grubby law firm to their regulatory body, the SRA as I am sure they do not condone this conduct.
https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/code/content.page.
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.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards