Britannia Parking, DCB Legal court claim 2025

Backsplash

Nice work Botherbys, sure all will be fine, fingers crossed for you.

Gr1pr

If approved,  slot it back into the rest of the unchanged template defence  (  no S in Defence  )  ,  renumber if required,  save as a pdf and email as described in the 2 announcements you were following 

Coupon-mad

You don't change the £170 to £178.16 (the latter includes interest & isn't the point).

You could add here (assuming all this about collecting a curry is true?):

The Defendant had never even heard of 'Britannia' (whichever legal entity(ies) are supposedly involved) and does not believe  that any signage offered a contract with 'Britannia Parking Group Ltd' nor was the Notice to Keeper issued by that company as far as the Defendant recollects.  This 'group' has three different Limited Companies and they are put to strict proof that this is the right Claimant. The Defendant did not see supposed terms / purported VRM keypad nor did they agree to a 'time limit' ultimatum to collect a curry within minutes or pay 'Britannia' a ludicrous three figure sum.  The Defendant does not even know...  etc. 

Botherbys

Coupon-mad said:

You don't change the £170 to £178.16 (the latter includes interest & isn't the point).

You could add here (assuming all this about collecting a curry is true?):

The Defendant had never even heard of 'Britannia' (whichever legal entity(ies) are supposedly involved) and does not believe  that any signage offered a contract with 'Britannia Parking Group Ltd' nor was the Notice to Keeper issued by that company as far as the Defendant recollects.  This 'group' has three different Limited Companies and they are put to strict proof that this is the right Claimant. The Defendant did not see supposed terms / purported VRM keypad nor did they agree to a 'time limit' ultimatum to collect a curry within minutes or pay 'Britannia' a ludicrous three figure sum.  The Defendant does not even know...  etc. 

Thank you for taking the time to reply and help. Is that copy and add verbatim or change the words in brackets? i only know of Britannia Parking Group Ltd, i don't know the names of the three other Ltd companies.  

Coupon-mad

Copy it all verbatim.

There's a reason.  You don't need to know about the different companies yet. We can explain this at WS stage.

Botherbys

Slightly amended/added to defence as suggested. 
Is this ok to email off to the relevant email address yet? Many thanks 

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: xxxxx

Between

Britannia ParkingGroup Ltd

(Claimant) 

- and -  

Sxxxxxxxx  (My full name)                      

 (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. No PCN was "issued on 26/05/2024" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £178.16 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

 

 3.1. Patrons of the curry restaurant that the Defendant used are exempt from the time limit but this was not prominently communicated inside the restaurant or outside in the car park.  The signs were not seen and appear to be woefully inadequate based on other reviews from people similarly caught out. The Defendant had never even heard of Britannia Parking, let alone seen their supposed terms / purported VRM keypad nor agreed to a 'time limit' ultimatum to collect a curry within minutes or pay them a ludicrous three figure sum. The Defendant had never even heard of 'Britannia' (whichever legal entity(ies) are supposedly involved) and does not believe that any signage offered a contract with 'Britannia Parking Group Ltd' nor was the Notice to Keeper issued by that company as far as the Defendant recollects. This 'group' has three different Limited Companies and they are put to strict proof that this is the right Claimant. The Defendant does not even know from the PCN or the POC what that time limit was, but they tried to resolve it by contesting the parking charge with a screen-shot of their bank statement showing the amount paid to the restaurant but this was rejected by a template letter. There was clearly no agreed contract, no breach of a known 'relevant contract or relevant obligation' and no legitimate interest to save the charge from falling foul of the penalty rule in these circumstances.

  

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.

Then "Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government" onward has all been used from Coupon-Mads "Template Defense thread". All of it, including the links.

Botherbys

Convert to PDF, electronically sign, as i do not currently have a printer that works and then email it to 
ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk

Gr1pr

Paragraph 3 should say £170 , not what you typed 

Add your printed name,  you can electronically sign it if you wish   ( I would but some others wouldn't   ) , save as a pdf file and attach to the email 

Botherbys

Amended the amount. Can i add printed name and an electronic signature. Taken me about an hour to figure out how to do it but it's not quite in line but best i can manage

Gr1pr

Botherbys said:

Amended the amount. Can i add printed name and an electronic signature. Taken me about an hour to figure out how to do it but it's not quite in line but best i can manage

Of course,  I think that you are overthinking it though

The simple tried and tested method is to sign a white piece of paper   ( or the claim form section itself   ) in black ink, scan it, or take a picture,  and embed it into your defence document, as your signature below the statement of truth 

But I believe that you could just print your name instead   ( I would do both as I mentioned earlier   )

Save as a pdf