URGENT! Defence deadline? PPC Britannia Parking - BW Legal

BPJT

Hi, Starting a new thread as my son has now received papers for 4 tickets at the same retail park I did. So far BW Legal are pursuing only three of these (all 4 were within a 2 week period during which he was having a mental health crisis linked to my own ticket). So far:

Issue date: 25/11/2021

Acknowledgment of service: 13/12/2021 

Does this mean we've missed the defence deadline or is it today? 

Fruitcake

Hopefully KeithP will be along soonly to confirm.

Service date is five days after issue date, meaning the claim was served on the 30th, giving 28 days to file a defence. I think, but cannot conform that the filing date is tomorrow, allowing for bank 'ollerdays, meaning you have until tomorrow afternoon to submit it.

You have time to amend paragraphs 2 and 3 of the defence template sticky Announcement, and post it here for checking, but do not miss tomorrow's filing deadline.

KeithP

BPJT said:

Issue date: 25/11/2021

Acknowledgment of service: 13/12/2021 

Does this mean we've missed the defence deadline or is it today? 

With a Claim Issue Date of 25th November, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 29th December, because today is a Bank Holiday, to file your Defence.

That's tomorrow. You have until 4pm tomorrow to file a Defence.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Of course everywhere I have written 'you' or 'your' I mean the named Defendant.

BPJT

I've quickly copied my own defence (Altered to his circumstances of course) and could insert this into the template given and send this via email:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.

3.        The road leading into the retail park concerned is a busy ring-road, giving little opportunity to reduce speed on approach to a 90o left-hand turn into the entrance. On entering the retail park concerned, a road sign of 10 miles per hour is visible on a post which sits directly behind and slightly right of a tree. The sign is visible immediately only due to its low placement on the post. There are other signs which sit higher on the same post, with one being slightly turned to the left rather than sitting straight-on, as the other signs do. Due to the tree in front, these are not immediately visible on turning into the short road leading to the retail park. On parking the vehicle concerned, there were no signs immediately obvious from the driver’s point of view, and nor were any obvious on getting out of the vehicle.

4.         During the time period in question the Defendant was experiencing significant mental health ill-health due to PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder, and at times, experiencing suicidal ideation and during the times these alleged parking violations happened, was meeting relatives and/or friends at Costa at the retail park.  The Defendant stayed as a paying customer at Costa whilst talking through his circumstances, thoughts and emotions and until the urgency of these thoughts had passed. The Defendant cannot be sure how long these stays were for.

5.          On inspection since the event, the signs in question are not large and are not able to be read or seen from all areas of the car park without walking up to them to read them. Additionally, the signage does not appear to contain all relevant information on which to form a contract.

6.         Despite a request for evidence of the signage at the date of the events, and evidence of the contract with the Landowner demonstrating the legal authority to issue and pursue such charges raised, these have not been forthcoming and the request has been rejected. These were requested with a view to identifying any clauses whereby paying customers might request the Landowner cancel the charge raised, in addition to securing evidence of any contractual right to issue such charges and the terms on which these might be raised.  

My only concern is that following my own defence, BW Legal has responded stating that the majority is copied from a website and is not relevant and has questioned my statement of truth as a result - should we still use the template in full with the above inserted accordingly? @Coupon-mad I'll update my own thread later today. 

Le_Kirk

According to most claimants "all defences are copied from the Internet" but, as one judge said "so what!"  Make sure that the defence is sent in the keeper's name not yours.  I think a lot of what has been written could/should be saved for the witness statement (WS) and keep the defence short and punchy just using legal/technical arguments.  You open the door to the WS by a short bullet point type argument - for example - the entry to the car park was complicated meaning the driver has to concentrate with little time for reading signs".  Signage is already included in the standard defence so make sure you do not duplicate the point.  Not sure that the way you have written point 6 is helpful as it reads like you are looking for escape clauses.

BPJT

Thanks @Le_Kirk I'll drop last sentence of point 6 and check for duplication re signage.  

Coupon-mad

Hilarious that BW Legal keep trotting that out.

With what was said by the Select Committee this month (THE ONLY BIT WITH ANY COMMON SENSE IN THE ENTIRE LETTER FROM THE CHAIR OF THE SC) I sincerely hope the DLUHC has the strength to price the aggressive, court-claim-happy motley crew of robo-claim firms out of this market at last, when the new statutory Code comes in for 2022.

Can't wait to see them (hopefully) stopped from adding multiples of £70 to claims which I hope will effectively drive many of them back under their rock.

Fruitcake

When "copying from the internet" has been brought up in court, at least one judge has replied, "So what?"

Your defence needs to be brief and to the point. A lot of what you have put reads like a witness statement. You need to explain what type of car park it was, and why you are not liable. 

The driver/defendant parked in a retail car park. There were no prominent signs at the entrance nor where the defendant parked. A site visit since has determined that signs are obscured by trees.

If the driver had mental health issues, then say so and cite the Equality Act 2010, mentioning the requirements for the claimant to allow "reasonable adjustments" for people with disabilities.
If the driver has/had cognitive/mental health issues due to an illness or injury, then say so, especially if it prevented them from processing information, such as the spoken or written word, or images, or time, or spatial awareness.

As for the claimant not supplying the landowner contract, you will (should) get this at the WS/exhibits stage. However, it wouldn't hurt to mention that the pre-action protocol for debt claims states that this sort of information should be provided at the earliest opportunity.

Paras 4.1 and 5 apply. 
Para 7 says the court expects both parties to comply with this PAP.

PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL FOR DEBT CLAIMS Redraft spring 2015 (justice.gov.uk)

You only need one or two lines to state you requested the alleged landowner contract in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for debt claims, paragraphs 4 and 5, but the claimant failed to supply them in breach of para 7.

BPJT

EDIT: Thanks everyone for your help so far. I've put a revised version of defence below that I can put into the template, is this a little better?

At the start of this thread I put he had 4 PCNs and they were pursuing 3 but in fact he had 3 PCNs and they are only pursuing 2 at this stage. In the initial response to the LBC he asked them for: "a full copy of any PCN's and/or Notice To Keeper documentation you hold against my vehicle (I would remind you at this point that if more than one is held and these are to be pursued, you should make a single claim covering all alleged PCNs)" They have continued to only pursue two but have still doubled the initial £60 additional "recovery" charge and are claiming interest and a further £100 in fees (£50 court fee and £50 Legal Rep costs) Should I mention this in the defence?

Also, although we did appeal initially, we did not take it to POPLA (many reasons) and the appeal was based purely on signage/authority to raise charges - does it damage us to now put in the mental health issues? It is completely true but we didn't put it in initial appeal. 

Finally, am I misunderstanding or does there seem to be some conflicting information being given here in relation to the defence? I am trusting all Coupon-Mad's template defence is relevant from my reading? 

Thanks in advance all for everything you do to help us all. 

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.

3.        The Defendant parked in a retail car park on several occasions . There were no prominent signs at the entrance nor where the defendant parked. A site visit since has determined that the entrance sign is obscured by a tree and other signs are not immediately obvious from several areas of the car park concerned. Additionally, the signage does not appear to contain all relevant information on which to form a contract.

4.         The Defendant has PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder as a consequence of a violent assault and during the relevant time period, was experiencing a significant exacerbation of these conditions, leading to suicidal ideation. Recognising this, the defendant sought the assistance of family & friends to help manage these on several occasions at this retail park and the stated state of mind at the time likely impacted the Defendant’s ability to notice any non-prominent signs or to notice the passage of time.

5.         Under Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010, the Claimant is under a duty to make reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities and in the circumstances described it may be considered unreasonable to pursue the charges claimed.

6.        In line with paragraph 4 of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, the Defendant responded to the letter-before-claim requesting additional information and documents including a copy of the alleged landowner contract and a site plan of the alleged signage. These were not provided, in breach of paragraphs 5 and 7 of the Pre-Action Protocol.

Le_Kirk

Looking good; you could "put the claimant to strict proof that they have advanced all of their claims that are based on essentially the same grounds and in the same car park" and leave the detail for the witness statement.  It is not a defence point but if you don't mention it in the defence you cannot expand upon it later.  What "conflicting information" do you believe is being given?

BPJT

Thanks @Le_Kirk I just had to send as it was above as time was running out! Re conflicting info - just meant the statements above about keeping things brief and punchy at defence stage - I am assuming this was meant with regard to my own little bit on specific circumstances and not in relation to the rest of the template defence-I've included all other elements set out in template.