We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
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!
Help with SAR and Defence
N12345
Posts: 5 Forumite
Hi
I have submitted a SAR to Britannia Parking but all they have sent me back is the letters I have sent them advising that I never received the original PCN and my reasons for appeal. Surely they have more information such as the fees paid on machine, photos etc. Are they deliberately withholding this information from me and what should I do?
This is my situation, I have never received the original PCN, I appears to have been lost in the post as they have sent me a copy. What are my legal rights on post being lost as I nothing is sent by registered mail and thousands of letters get lost by Royal Mail. As I have not received the original PCN I have not been given the right to pay the reduced amount or appeal. I wrote a letter to them anyway giving my reasons for appeal and I did by mistake disclose the driver.
My reasons for appeal were that I paid for 4 hours and I was back at my car at 4 hours but had a lot of problems with my car starting at the time took around 20 minutes before I managed to get my car to start so left the car park late.
I have been given this template defence to use below, it is very generic apart from the first few sentences, do I need to include more personal circumstances or is this enough, any help would be much appreciated as I have read all the newbies threads and have struggled to know what else I need to include, all the legal jargen is quite hard to understand.
Thanks
1. I am ……………, the Defendant in this matter, registered keeper and driver of vehicle …………………..
2. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed or at all.
3. The Defendant denies any abuse of the parking facilities or in fact any breach. The Defendant purchased a valid parking ticket but was prevented from leaving the car park due to an intermittent fault with their vehicle which required expert attention.
4. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. 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 their Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.
5. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and the Defendant questions that they comply with CPR 16 and 22, in respect of statements of case, and the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct.
6. The Claimant has brought a claim for £243.24 as the principal sum, although the amount stated on their Notice to Keeper (“NTK”) is £100. Section 4(5) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act mandates that the maximum sum which can be recovered is the amount specified in the NTK, in this case £100. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the additional sum, or to any interest thereon. This gross inflation of the amount is an abuse of process and not supported by the decision of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case).
7. 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.”
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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...''
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Signage in place was not prevalent and not brought to the attention of motorists sufficiently as to comply with the code of practice of the Claimant’s accredited trade association.
18. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe that the facts contained in this Defence are true.
I have submitted a SAR to Britannia Parking but all they have sent me back is the letters I have sent them advising that I never received the original PCN and my reasons for appeal. Surely they have more information such as the fees paid on machine, photos etc. Are they deliberately withholding this information from me and what should I do?
This is my situation, I have never received the original PCN, I appears to have been lost in the post as they have sent me a copy. What are my legal rights on post being lost as I nothing is sent by registered mail and thousands of letters get lost by Royal Mail. As I have not received the original PCN I have not been given the right to pay the reduced amount or appeal. I wrote a letter to them anyway giving my reasons for appeal and I did by mistake disclose the driver.
My reasons for appeal were that I paid for 4 hours and I was back at my car at 4 hours but had a lot of problems with my car starting at the time took around 20 minutes before I managed to get my car to start so left the car park late.
I have been given this template defence to use below, it is very generic apart from the first few sentences, do I need to include more personal circumstances or is this enough, any help would be much appreciated as I have read all the newbies threads and have struggled to know what else I need to include, all the legal jargen is quite hard to understand.
Thanks
1. I am ……………, the Defendant in this matter, registered keeper and driver of vehicle …………………..
2. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed or at all.
3. The Defendant denies any abuse of the parking facilities or in fact any breach. The Defendant purchased a valid parking ticket but was prevented from leaving the car park due to an intermittent fault with their vehicle which required expert attention.
4. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. 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 their Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.
5. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and the Defendant questions that they comply with CPR 16 and 22, in respect of statements of case, and the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct.
6. The Claimant has brought a claim for £243.24 as the principal sum, although the amount stated on their Notice to Keeper (“NTK”) is £100. Section 4(5) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act mandates that the maximum sum which can be recovered is the amount specified in the NTK, in this case £100. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the additional sum, or to any interest thereon. This gross inflation of the amount is an abuse of process and not supported by the decision of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case).
7. 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.”
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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...''
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Signage in place was not prevalent and not brought to the attention of motorists sufficiently as to comply with the code of practice of the Claimant’s accredited trade association.
18. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner.
- The Defendant questions that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Britannia parking group limited T/a Britannia parking and that Britannia parking group limited T/a Britannia parking have the locus standi to bring this matter to court.
- For all of the reasons stated above the Defendant asks that the learned judge utilise the discretionary powers of case management and strike out this claim as vexatious and frivolous.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe that the facts contained in this Defence are true.
0
Comments
-
I say move these higher up, as they are underneath the conclusion about fake costs at the mo:17. Signage in place was not prevalent and not brought to the attention of motorists sufficiently as to comply with the code of practice of the Claimant’s accredited trade association.
18. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner.
The Defendant questions that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Britannia parking group limited T/a Britannia parking and that Britannia parking group limited T/a Britannia parking have the locus standi to bring this matter to court.
And delete this bit as it's already stated in #16, with better wording:For all of the reasons stated above the Defendant asks that the learned judge utilise the discretionary powers of case management and strike out this claim as vexatious and frivolous.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 -
Have you received a County Court Claim Form yet?
If so, what is the Issue Date on it and did it come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?0 -
Have you received a County Court Claim Form yet?
If so, what is the Issue Date on it and did it come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?
Hi
Yes I have received the county court claim form, The issue Date is 5th July. I did go on money claim and submit an AOL to give me more time.
Yes it did come from Northampton.0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »I say move these higher up, as they are underneath the conclusion about fake costs at the mo:
And delete this bit as it's already state in #16, with better wording:
Thank you, do I wait until the witness statement to go into more details?
What about the SAR submitted and the information they have provided back to me, is this an issue as they haven't provided me with anything apart from what I have sent? They are obviously withholding information0 -
6. The Claimant has brought a claim for £243.24
Clearly an abuse of process, read this
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal
also report the matter to the SAR
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal
They are knowingly trying to claim for monies to which they have no entitlement in law., and get you MP on side ac 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 -
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.Yes I have received the county court claim form, The issue Date is 5th July. I did go on money claim and submit an AOL to give me more time.
Yes it did come from Northampton.
That's over three 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.
- 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.
-
6. The Claimant has brought a claim for £243.24
Clearly an abuse of process, read this
also report the matter to the SAR
They are knowingly trying to claim for monies to which they have no entitlement in law., and get you MP on side ac 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.
Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.
How do I report Matter to SAR? It is obvious they are withholding the information from me that I have requested.
Also is there a standard letter on here to write to MP? I wouldn't have a clue where to start
Thanks0 -
You can't report anything to SAR as that is Subject Access Request, which presumably is what you submitted. If the PPC has not been forthcoming and you KNOW there is more information and data that they should have supplied, then you complain to the (ICO) Information Commissioner's Office. However, if you (and the Deep) mean the Solicitor's Regulatory Authority, just ask Auntie Google.How do I report Matter to SAR? It is obvious they are withholding the information from me that I have requested.
Also is there a standard letter on here to write to MP? I wouldn't have a clue where to start
Thanks
There are no templates for writing to MPs, just write it from the heart - you know how annoyed you are. let them know that and demand that they do something about this travesty etc...........0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards