IMPORTANT REMINDER: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information. If you are uploading images, please take extra care that you have redacted all personal information.

PCN / Britannia Parking & BW Legal

1468910

Replies

  • moon_dustmoon_dust Forumite
    56 Posts
    Forumite
    Coupon-mad wrote: »
    You don't, it is already covered in #11 and doesn't have to be quantified as £50.

    Remove this sentence and just start #9 with 'Whilst...':

    OK great. I thought I needed to make the defence specific to my case. I will make these changes now.

    So is my para. 7 OK? I have stated there about the additional £60 plus interest.
  • Coupon-madCoupon-mad
    108.5K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Forumite
    Para 7 is fine. Did you remove the admission about overstaying?

    As it is Britannia, change this in #13 to be more specific about YOUR claimant:
    One was the same serial Claimant as in this case (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model)
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • moon_dustmoon_dust Forumite
    56 Posts
    Forumite
    Thanks again, Coupon-mad. I have made all the above changes. Please see revised version below.
    IN THE COUNTY COURT

    CLAIM No: xxx

    BETWEEN:

    Britannia Parking Group Limited (Claimant)

    -and-

    xxx (Defendant)

    ________________________________________
    DEFENCE
    ________________________________________

    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 xxxx xxx, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay for use by customers of the Old Green Parade shops.

    3. A contract was not knowingly entered into as the signage is poorly placed, difficult to read and, above all, not illuminated. The terms on the Claimant's signage are 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.

    4. It is unreasonable to expect that 20 minutes is sufficient time to use the shops and facilities in this location.

    5. There are signs displayed within the window of the Raj restaurant which states “No Time Limit For Customer Parking”.

    6. 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. The New Milton Advertiser published an article on Friday 22nd December 2017 which gives an account of the local shopkeepers who wrote to Britannia Parking to state that “this car park belongs to all the shopkeepers and for our customers’ use and nobody has a right to make any decision without all the shopkeepers’ consent”. This letter was stated to have been signed by representatives from 6 of the 9 shops there.

    7. The claim includes an additional £64.28, on top of the original charge of £100, for contractual costs pursuant to PCN terms and conditions, with interest added. 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.

    8. The Civil Procedure Rule 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. This is a further Abuse of Process and an attempt at double recovery. The Civil Procedure Rules Part 27, under Rule 27.14, does not allow such claim for legal fees within the Small Claims Court.

    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.

    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. 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 Judgement 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, as in this case (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. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

    Name
    Signature
    Date
  • Coupon-madCoupon-mad
    108.5K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Forumite
    You want the words 'the same serial Claimant':
    the same serial Claimant as in this case
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • moon_dustmoon_dust Forumite
    56 Posts
    Forumite
    Coupon-mad wrote: »
    You want the words 'the same serial Claimant':

    OK, no problem. I'll get this changed.

    Other than that, do you think it is ready?

    I have until a week Monday (22nd) to get my Defence issued, but I am keen to get it done in the next few days.
  • moon_dustmoon_dust Forumite
    56 Posts
    Forumite
    Massive thanks for all the help so far :T

    Any more comments on my defence, as post #54?
  • RedxRedx Forumite
    38.1K Posts
    Eighth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Forumite
    Where it says it is ordered, add, the judge stated, or the judge has written, or something similar in order to make it clear and that it's not you telling the judge what to do, other than that it looks good to me
  • edited 20 August 2019 at 11:01PM
    moon_dustmoon_dust Forumite
    56 Posts
    Forumite
    edited 20 August 2019 at 11:01PM
    Redx wrote: »
    Where it says it is ordered, add, the judge stated, or the judge has written, or something similar in order to make it clear and that it's not you telling the judge what to do, other than that it looks good to me

    Thank you very much!

    Will get this amended.

    Update to mention that Defence has now been sent!

    Further update to say that I received the DQ on 12th August and I will be returning it to both the CCBC and to Britannia Parking very soon (I have until 29th August).
  • moon_dustmoon_dust Forumite
    56 Posts
    Forumite
    Just an update to say that I filed my DQ via email on 21st August. I had email receipts from all parties (including the CCBC in Northampton).

    However, I received a General Form of Judgement or Order in the post dated 11/09/19 claiming that I failed to submit the DQ.

    I have just sent it again this afternoon to the email address provided.

    Does anybody know if there is a phone number that I can call to check if it has been received?

    Thanks
  • Le_KirkLe_Kirk Forumite
    18.4K Posts
    Eighth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    Forumite
    I just asked Auntie Google and she said go HERE.
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides

Fans demand refunds from Leeds Festival

...after Rage Against The Machine pulls out

MSE News

The 'Ask An Expert' event

Check out last week's energy-themed Q&A with MSE's experts

MSE Forum

Free museums & galleries

Where to get your culture fix across the UK

MSE Deals