Britannia Parking, DCB Legal court claim 2025

BeachWalker

Coupon-mad said:

You didn't use my suggested 3.2?

You've included para 9 even though it's about the Draft IA that I said to delete.

We assume you haven't binned everything after para 9.

Argh it had not copied across, yes definitely using your suggested 3.2
Iv edited above draft now with 3.2 included 

Yes everything after para 9 is still included from the template just not posted the full template here.

BeachWalker

Hi Apologies for missing para 3.2,  Iv took out all i can see on the IA stuff and here is the full defense , sorry if not supposed to post the whole thing but would like to be sure i have everything before sending it off , does this look acceptable now?  Thankyou

Also not sure weather to mention these points about signage or just wait till the witness statement?

The defendant believes the signage was not presented properly on driving through the entrance and the defendant did pay on arrival, The claimant failed to display the terms & conditions at the paying meter as stated on the sign at other side of the car park which the defendant did not walk past on the day of pcn.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No. 

Between

(Claimant) 

BRITANNIA PARKING GROUP LTD

7TH FLOOR

300 COUNTY GATES HOUSE              

POOLE RD      

POOLE

BH12 1AZ

- and -  

 (Defendant)

DEFENCE

1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 07/06/2024, as alleged.  Whilst the Defendant is the named driver of the vehicle  paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The amount is hugely exaggerated and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

 

3.1. The defendant made a keying error, entering their other cars VRM. The defendant paid for parking correctly of £1 for 1 hour by card payment as seen on the defendants Bank Statement and the Claimants equipment stated Approved Thankyou. The Claimant made no attempt to match up the obvious 'wrong car' payment that clearly matched the drivers time in the car park, Also, it is the Government's clear position that penalising drivers for VRM errors is an unfair burden under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 because parking firms have the right VRMs in their ANPR footage and should immediately reject a wrong VRM being typed in ('vehicle not on site') on the day, and not issue PCNs at all for any VRM typos. Unfair terms that are weighted against the consumer and breach the CRA are unrecoverable.

 

3.2.  There is no 'legitimate interest' in pursuing a Defendant who paid in full. There was no loss, and the Claimant knows full well that the wrong VRM did not relate to a vehicle in the car park and that they received the payment relating to the Defendant's period of parking. This has been tested at appeal: in a short 'reasons' judgment or order dated 10th June 2024, His Honour Judge Pema (sitting at the County Court at Bradford) refused Excel Parking Services Ltd's attempt to appeal the decision in Case no K4QZ4Y21 which was a VRM typo case, on all fours with this one. There is no cause of action.

 

4. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

5. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.


Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

6. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap).  It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred.

7. This claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due in debt or damages. This Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it.

8. This is a classic example where adding exaggerated fees funds bulk litigation of weak and/or archive parking cases. No checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit or a cause of action (given away by the woefully inadequate POC).

9. The heads of alleged loss or purported 'contractually agreed' sums are unspecified and not adequately broken down, but it is denied that the added costs / damages sought were incurred. In this industry, debt collectors charge nothing when failing to collect parking charges.

10. A typical private PCN model comprises a series of demands that the Supreme Court called an 'automated letter-chain' and the parking charge itself is already inflated to generate a healthy profit. In Beavis, there were 4 pre-action letters/reminders and the £85 PCN was held to more than cover the minor costs of the operation. This is less about genuine 'parking management' and more of a PCN-generating scheme, where debt demands are part of the regime.

11. Whilst the new Code is 'on hold' and not retrospective, the new MHCLG Secretary of State must still introduce a statutory Code of Practice according to the legislation already enacted. It is surely a clear steer for the Courts that the Government said that it is addressing 'market failure' and in 2025, the new Labour Government has pledged to resurrect the statutory Code with a Public Consultation expected within weeks. Statutory regulation will soon replace the BPA & IPC Code, so the clauses in the (temporarily stalled) February 2022 Code should bear significantly more weight than the industry's own self-serving version. 

12. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis.  Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment.  Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (decision ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs' inflating a PCN to £135 exaggerated the cost of template letters and 'would appear to be penal'. That judgment was unaffected by Beavis and remains binding as the only authority covering the clear abuse of parking firms routinely adding imaginary 'admin /debt recovery' fees to further enhance a large parking charge.

13. In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper. The Claimant is put to strict proof of POFA compliance, if they are relying upon 'keeper liability'.

14. The Defendant avers that there was no agreement to pay a parking charge or added 'damages' which were not even incurred, let alone quantified in bold, prominent text. This Claimant's lack of large, readable signs are nothing like the yellow & black warnings seen in Beavis, nor do they even meet the basic signage requirements in the current BPA & IPC Joint Code of Practice, which reflects the already statutory requirement for 'prominence' (Consumer Rights Act 2015 - the 'CRA').

CRA breach - lack of prominent terms

15. Section 71 CRA creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness whether a party raises it or not.

16. The CRA introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both terms and 'consumer notices'. In a parking context, this includes a test of fairness and clarity of 'signs & lines' and all communications (written or otherwise). Signs must be prominent (lit in hours of darkness/dusk and adequately positioned where terms are bound to be seen) and all terms must be unambiguous and contractual obligations clear.

17.  The Defendant avers that the CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith (NB: this does not necessarily mean there has to be a finding of bad faith).  

ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished

18.  Unlike in Beavis, the penalty rule remains engaged. The CRA covers disproportionate sums, which are not exempt from being assessed for fairness because a 'fee' is not the core price term and neither was it prominently proclaimed on the signs.  

19. The Supreme Court held that deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of a 'legitimate interest' in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from alleged breach.  The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden terms or cumbersome obligations ('concealed pitfalls or traps').  This Claimant has failed those tests, with small signs, hidden terms and minuscule small print that is incapable of binding a driver. Court of Appeal authorities about a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a parking charge include:

(i) Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (Lord Denning's ‘red hand rule’) and

(ii) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2,

both leading authorities that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and

(iii) Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000, where Ms Vine won because it was held that she had not seen the terms by which she would later be bound, due to "the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the parking space''. 

Lack of standing or landowner authority, and lack of ADR

20. DVLA registered keeper data is only supplied on the basis that parking operators who do not own the land must hold prior written agreement from the landholder. Should the Claimant try to rely upon the finding in One Parking Solution v Wilshaw in this regard, it is averred that this appeal judgment was misguided and plainly wrong. The DVLA rules and requirements that relate to private parking operators are a fundamental set of rules specific to parking on private land and regrettably, HHJ Simpkiss was not appraised about the 'KADOE' requirement for written landowner authority. Even the BPA & IPC's questionable industry Code gets this right: absent written landowner authority, there is no 'reasonable cause' to obtain DVLA data nor to issue PCNs. 

21. It is not accepted that this Claimant (an agent of a principal) had written authority from the landowner to offer and form contracts with drivers at this site, in their own right. Many parking operators merely act as agents (contracted to put signs up and issue charges 'on behalf of' the site landowner) and this Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to litigate.

22. The Claimant failed to offer a genuinely independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The rival Trade Bodies' time-limited and opaque 'appeals' services fail to properly consider facts or rules of law and reject most disputes: e.g. the IAS upheld appeals in a woeful average 5% of decided cases (ref: recent Annual IAS Reports). An impartial, fair appeals service was never on offer.

Conclusion

23. There is now evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims that are causing consumer harm. The claim itself relies on an unfair charge which is entirely without merit, and should be dismissed.

24. In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, and further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5. 

25.  Attention is drawn to the (often-seen) distinct possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."   

 

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signature:

Date:

 

Coupon-mad

Yes that is good.

Add this somewhere around para 15:

The Defendant believes the signage was not presented properly on driving through the entrance. The Defendant did pay on arrival but the Claimant failed to display the terms & conditions at the pay & display machine, which only displayed tariffs and no relevant contract or relevant obligation. The faded t&cs sign was found on a subsequent visit (after the PCN arrived) tucked away behind vehicles at the other side of the car park, which the Defendant did not have cause to walk past on the day of the parking event.

BeachWalker

Coupon-mad said:

Yes that is good.

Add this somewhere around para 15:

The Defendant believes the signage was not presented properly on driving through the entrance. The Defendant did pay on arrival but the Claimant failed to display the terms & conditions at the pay & display machine, which only displayed tariffs and no relevant contract or relevant obligation. The faded t&cs sign was found on a subsequent visit (after the PCN arrived) tucked away behind vehicles at the other side of the car park, which the Defendant did not have cause to walk past on the day of the parking event.

Thats brilliant, thankyou soo much for all your help. I shall get defense finalized and emailed off following the 12 Step guide. 

Insolvenaut

Did you see a contract between Britannia Parking and the landowner?

BeachWalker

Insolvenaut said:

Did you see a contract between Britannia Parking and the landowner?

Hi No i dont who owns the land, maybe the haven caravan park or the caravelle pub ? , and not seen any contract between those 2.  Is this something that should be seen and could be useful? 

BeachWalker

Defence acknowledged 
Is it 28 days from date of this letter they need to act or it stays?

Gr1pr

I would not believe the current timelines given that the CNBC are overwhelmed by claims,  keep checking your MCOL claim history for progress 

BeachWalker

Hi all, had a look over the evidence pack again today from BP, showing my time of entry 7:44 early morning, I recall from memory only 1 other car in the large car park. So they should have easily understood it was my £1 payment just wrong reg entered. Also the signage is literally stuck to brick pillar behind the parking meter and the position I parked next to front of the meter I dud not see the board n T&C,s. Either way I've paid fair n square to them. 

Coupon-mad

BeachWalker said:

Insolvenaut said:

Did you see a contract between Britannia Parking and the landowner?

Hi No i dont who owns the land, maybe the haven caravan park or the caravelle pub ? , and not seen any contract between those 2.  Is this something that should be seen and could be useful? 

Wasn't it in their POPLA evidence file?