Britannia/BW Legal CCBC

Delfryd73

Hi All,

Firstly a huge thank you for the body of work on this thread. It has enabled me to be a lot more confident in fighting back against this unscrupulous practice.

A brief description of the case:

PCN was issued by Britannia Parking on 7th Sep 2018 for an 'alleged' infringement on the 29thAug 2018. Their claim was against the registered keeper (myself) and was for exceeding maximum stay of 3hrs. The overstay was only 15 minutes and 9 seconds. I responded with using the information on this site, but they have still now proceeded to claim against me in County Court. The claim form was dated 05 Jul 2019 and I acknowledged service on 8th July 2019 as per instructions. Below is a first draft of my defence and appreciate any advice or amendments:



To The County Court

Claim No: XXXXXXX

Between

Britannia Parking Group (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

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')'.

2. The allegation appears to be based on a parking charge notice ('PCN') that was issued just 15 minutes after expiry of ‘maximum time allowed’, however does not take into consideration any grace period.

3. At the material time, the Claimant operated strictly subject to the January 2018 British Parking Association ('BPA') CoP, which says: Grace Periods:

13.4 ''You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.''

3.1. Further, and in support of the submission that it is reasonable to conclude that the grace period should be more than 15 minutes, the Defendant has found a BPA article published in 2013. The article is by Kelvin Reynolds, Director of Policy and Public Affairs, who, despite encouraging a ''war on the non-compliant motorist'' was honoured by the BPA for his outstanding contribution to parking with a Lifetime Achievement Award.

3.1.1. Mr Reynolds' article had this to say about grace periods, which shows that the Defendant was not (in the BPA Trade Body's view) 'a non-compliant motorist': “No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.” The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place. Kelvin continues:''In the instance of a PCN being issued while a ticket is being purchased, the operator has clearly not given the motorist sufficient time to read the signs and comply as per the operator’s own rules.''

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. 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, especially with no 'grace period' mentioned. Furthermore, the signage at this site at the time of the alleged claim varied in the information they offer users, in that the entrance sign included small print that is not replicated on signs further into the car park in question. Any reasonably circumspect driver would be entitled to rely upon the BPA's interpretation of grace periods and not expect to be penalised for the time taken to find a suitable sign that contained the necessary terms for review prior to leaving their vehicle.

6. In any 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, and no doubt, to issue PCNs - but 'on behalf of' the landowner, which would give them no authority or standing.

6.1. Even if the Claimant was authorised to issue PCNs in their own right, it is denied that they could do so unfairly in a grace period and outwith the scope of the BPA CoP

7. In addition to the original 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. These have been variously described as a 'BW Legal instructions fee' (in the pre-action exchange of letters) and/or a 'debt collection charge' (not part of any terms on signage and cannot be added, not least because it was never expended). Suddenly in the Particulars there is also a second add-on for purported 'legal representative costs of £50' on top of the vague £60, plus a court cost of £25.00 artificially hiking the sum to £241.20. This would be more than double recovery, being vague and disingenuous and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.

7.2. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs. Given the fact that BW Legal boasted in Bagri v BW Legal Ltd of processing 'millions' of claims with an admin team (and only a handful of solicitors), the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste PPS robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities.

7.2.1. 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

Big_Boi

I'd replace paragraph 7 with the entire section of Coupon-Mad's response as written in the ABUSE OF PROCESS thread which was put together by beamerguy. Don't forget to paragraph the below if you decide to use it.

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:
''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.


Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.


Name

Signature


Date

Delfryd73

Thank you for the advice. I've included the piece into my defence instead of my section. hopefully reads better now as below:



To The County Court

Claim No: XXXXXXX

Between

Britannia Parking Group (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

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')'.

2. The allegation appears to be based on a parking charge notice ('PCN') that was issued just 15 minutes after expiry of ‘maximum time allowed’, however does not take into consideration any grace period.

3. At the material time, the Claimant operated strictly subject to the January 2018 British Parking Association ('BPA') CoP, which says: Grace Periods:

13.4 ''You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.''

3.1. Further, and in support of the submission that it is reasonable to conclude that the grace period should be more than 15 minutes, the Defendant has found a BPA article published in 2013. The article is by Kelvin Reynolds, Director of Policy and Public Affairs, who, despite encouraging a ''war on the non-compliant motorist'' was honoured by the BPA for his outstanding contribution to parking with a Lifetime Achievement Award.

3.1.1. Mr Reynolds' article had this to say about grace periods, which shows that the Defendant was not (in the BPA Trade Body's view) 'a non-compliant motorist': “No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.” The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place. Kelvin continues: “In the instance of a PCN being issued while a ticket is being purchased, the operator has clearly not given the motorist sufficient time to read the signs and comply as per the operator’s own rules.! If a motorist decides they do not want to comply and leaves the car park, then a reasonable period of time should be provided also.”

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. 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, especially with no 'grace period' mentioned. Furthermore, the signage at this site at the time of the alleged claim varied in the information they offer users, in that the entrance sign included small print that is not replicated on al of the signs further into the car park in question. Any reasonably circumspect driver would be entitled to rely upon the BPA's interpretation of grace periods and not expect to be penalised for the time taken to find a suitable sign that contained the necessary terms for review prior to leaving their vehicle.

6. In any 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, and no doubt, to issue PCNs - but 'on behalf of' the landowner, which would give them no authority or standing.

6.1. Even if the Claimant was authorised to issue PCNs in their own right, it is denied that they could do so unfairly in a grace period and outwith the scope of the BPA CoP

7. The defendant also maintains the costs on the claim are 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.

7.1. 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.

7.1.1. 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.

7.2. 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.

7.2.1. 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.

7.3. 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.

7.4. 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:

''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...''

7.5. 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.

7.6. 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.

7.7. 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.

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.


Name

Signature

Redx

Email a SAR to the DPO at Brittania with a scan or pic of the V5C or N1 claim form to obtain the docs, pics and data about you and your vehicle

Also download and read the BPA Cop in force at the time of the PCN as well

This should have all gone to popla at the time, so do so in future

Delfryd73

Thanks Redx,

I forgot to add in my opening summary that I couldn't appeal POPLA as I did not receive the initial comms from Britannia Parking and only was made aware via a debt agency demand. I sent a SAR request to BPG when I received a LBC from BW Legal and have all the information they pertain to hold on me, which I am digesting still.

Umkomaas

Delfryd73 wrote: »

Thanks Redx,

I forgot to add in my opening summary that I couldn't appeal POPLA as I did not receive the initial comms from Britannia Parking and only was made aware via a debt agency demand. I sent a SAR request to BPG when I received a LBC from BW Legal and have all the information they pertain to hold on me, which I am digesting still.

If Britannia failed to respond to your initial appeal and in the process did not provide a POPLA code, complain strongly to Steve Clark of the BPA.

steve.c@britishparking.co.uk

The response to the SAR will show if such a response was made and the POPLA code should show in that response. Test out the veracity of the POPLA code and the date of its issue by using the following POPLA code checker:

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/popla-code-checker/

Le_Kirk

6.1. Even if the Claimant was authorised to issue PCNs in their own right, it is denied that they could do so unfairly in a grace period and outwith the scope of the BPA CoP

I might be reading this incorrectly but did you mean: -

6.1. Even if the Claimant was authorised to issue PCNs in their own right, it is denied that they could do so [strike]un[/strike]fairly in a grace period and outwith the scope of the BPA CoP

KeithP

Delfryd73 wrote: »

The claim form was dated 05 Jul 2019 and I acknowledged service on 8th July 2019 as per instructions.

With a Claim Issue Date of 5th July, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 7th August 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but please 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.

Delfryd73

Thanks for the advice all. in response:

1. The SAR confirmed that Britannia had sent out their PCN within the allotted timeframe. I just did not receive it and only started receiving mail from them when it got to debt recovery stage. Well over the 28 days limit I'm afraid and I thought I'd missed the POPLA appeal stage by then so didn't bother appealing. I did send them the letters as highlighted on this page asking for all the details as afforded me, but they sent back the standard responses until they issued the County Court Claim.


2. I will amend the unfair/fair statement as you suggest Le_Kirk