Court Claim - Britannia Parking/ BW Legal

eshjie

Hello, I have been issued a court claim from Britania Parking Group.

This dates back to when the driver parked in a car park in 2017 and got a ticket. As the keeper, I Ignored the ticket, ignored all communications. I only responded when I got a letter before claim. Following the advice, I read in this forum I sent a letter asking for more details about the claim and telling them they did not give enough info. I used a template, I don't recall seeing a response to this request though.

I have kind of half-heartedly been dealing with this hoping it will just go away, and it hasn't .

The claim was issued against me on 05/07/19 and I have submitted the acknowledgement of service today 09/07/2019.

I read the newbies thread and seen other defences and I'm a little put off by the fact I have and can remember such a small amount of information from the initial letters.

I almost just paid it just now as I was unsure how I would defend myself and how long it would even take, but figured it would be a good idea to get thoughts prior to this.

Does anyone have any tips on how I should proceed seeing as I pretty much have no defence and don't even know much about the spot in which the car was parked?

Thanks in advance

Quentin

Throughout here you are advised never to reveal who was driving


Edit your post to remove details of who was driving


The ppcs monitor here and can use posts in your thread against you in Court

KeithP

eshjie wrote: »

The claim was issued against me on 05/07/19 and I have submitted the acknowledgement of service today 09/07/2019.

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 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.

Coupon-mad

I almost just paid it just now as I was unsure how I would defend myself and how long it would even take,

About half an hour, tops, if you simply use the resources here and copy the one someone else just put together.

Egbert_Nobacon

Firstly edit your post the DRIVER parked on the day whilst the KEEPER has received the court claim - they are 2 different people.

Send a SAR to Brit to see what they are holding on you.

If Brit have added the fake £60 into the claim search for ABUSE OF PROCESS where a previous Brit claim was struck out by the DJ prior to a hearing.

eshjie

Thanks for all the help, post edited.

@coupon-mad - I found that defence, thank you. I will start making alterations to that to suit.

My understanding is that a SAR can take 40 days, is that still worth me doing?

They have indeed added the fake £60 in, so I will search for that and add that to the defence

beamerguy

eshjie wrote: »

Thanks for all the help, post edited.

@coupon-mad - I found that defence, thank you. I will start making alterations to that to suit.

My understanding is that a SAR can take 40 days, is that still worth me doing?

They have indeed added the fake £60 in, so I will search for that and add that to the defence

They must reply to a SAR within 30 days.

THE FAKE £60 = ABUSE OF PROCESS
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

See coupon-mad's post # 14 on the thread which you include

Your job is to show the judge what 2 other judges have said recently about ABUSE OF PROCESS ..... they both kicked out BWLegal

eshjie

I have read the defence fully now and can see it already contains provisions for abuse of process, so that is taken care of in that. Very good! Unfortunately, my case is not in Southampton.

Next steps now according to newbie thread would be to post defence here but seeing as its the same as elsewhere I'm not sure that's necessary.

My next steps, therefore, will be to follow the steps outlined by KeithP. Although I will hold off a few days in case anyone suggests to me to slow down and further check something

Really appreciate what you guys do and the time you put into helping people like me. Good Karma will come your way!

beamerguy

eshjie wrote: »

I have read the defence fully now and can see it already contains provisions for abuse of process, so that is taken care of in that. Very good! Unfortunately, my case is not in Southampton.

Next steps now according to newbie thread would be to post defence here but seeing as its the same as elsewhere I'm not sure that's necessary.

My next steps, therefore, will be to follow the steps outlined by KeithP. Although I will hold off a few days in case anyone suggests to me to slow down and further check something

Really appreciate what you guys do and the time you put into helping people like me. Good Karma will come your way!

You don't have to be in Southampton, any local court in E&W will be good with reference to Southampton and the IOW

Yes, trust KeithP. You still post your defence here so it can be checked by those who know ..... that's the wise thing

eshjie

Thankyou!

Ok, so this will be my defence. Hopefully, it's all good!
*EDIT
*UPDATE 21/07/2019 following comments and suggestions.
*UPDATE 24/04/2019 following further comments and suggestions



1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXX XXX of which the Defendant used to be the registered keeper, was parked at a pay and display ticket machine car park in XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. The allegation made against the Defendant is that no valid ticket had been visibly displayed during that time, possibly it had fallen off. It is too long ago to remember the particulars claim in detail or even what the original letters stated, however the defendant/keeper of the vehicle never saw the original PCN and does not believe the claim for such sum of money is in anyway justified.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Furthermore the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

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, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. Further and in the alternative, 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.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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:
The Judge stated that ''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...''


15. 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.

16. 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.


Statement of Truth:

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


Name

Signature

Date

beamerguy

I like it, see what others say