Britannia/BW Legal Claim Form

Thanks

So I should remove the bit highlighted in red in my defence, and add something about the PCN not being compliant with POFA due to the timeline discrepancy?

I thought that the best hope I had was the grace periods - do you not think that'll work?

This is about staying practically double the time, as surely if it's 20 mins it must be a small car park so you can hardly say it took the driver 9 minutes to drive in and another 9 minute to leave/manoeuvre out?

Surely it doesn't matter what happened (per se), it only matters that the grace periods are required?

BPA CoP (v6) requires, regardless of car park size:
- 'reasonable' grace period at the beginning
- minimum 10 minutes at the end

Therefore, I only have to argue 8 minutes is accounted for by the reasonable period. Even if the reasonable period was shorter, say 5 minutes, then the effective overstay would be 3 minutes, and surely I can then claim that £100 PCN for 3 minutes overstay is "extravagant and unconscionable"?

Updated defence:

---

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM NO. X

BETWEEN

BRITANNIA PARKING GROUP LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-

X (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 X, of which the Defendant is the Registered Keeper, was within the car park for a total of X minutes and X seconds, according to the Claimant’s Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the accurate timing, synchronisation and maintenance of the ANPR system.

3 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 (PCNs), and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

4 In spite of the Defendant’s request, the Claimant has failed to supply details of the signage that was in place at the time of the alleged contravention, which, according to the Claimant, details the terms and conditions of the car park. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 16.4 and Civil Practice Direction 16, Paragraph 7.3. Furthermore, the Letter of Claim sent on behalf of the Claimant did not include this information, which is a clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. The Defendant has it on good authority that the signage at the car park was changed following the alleged contravention. As such, the current signage at the car park is not applicable to the Claim. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of the signage that was in place at the time of the alleged contravention.

5 Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass.

6 As a British Parking Association (BPA) member and approved operator, the Claimant must comply with the mandatory BPA Code of Practice (CoP), of which Version 6 was in force at the time of the alleged contravention. The Defendant notes the following points in relation to the BPA CoP Version 6, which was considered effectively ‘regulation’ by Judges at the Supreme Court.

6.1 The BPA CoP Section 13 requires the Claimant to allow two ‘grace periods’ – one reasonable period at the beginning of the parking period, and a minimum of 10 minutes at the end of the parking period. The Defendant attests that if the period of free parking was indeed 20 minutes, then the alleged X minute and X second overstay easily falls within the required grace periods. As such, the Claim is in breach of the BPA CoP.

6.2 The BPA CoP Section 18.2 requires the Claimant to have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the car park, which must follow some minimum general principles. Having inspected the site of the alleged contravention, the Defendant notes that the Claimant’s current entrance signage is positioned such that it cannot be read by drivers as they enter the car park. It is assumed that the entrance signage in place at the time of the alleged contravention would have been similar at best, and puts the Claimant to strict proof. As such, the Claimant is in breach of the BPA CoP, and it is denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

6.3 The BPA CoP Sections 18.3 and 18.4 require the Claimant to have signage stating the specific parking terms throughout the car park. The Defendant has it on good authority that the signage in place at the time of the alleged contravention was in breach of these requirements, and puts the Claimant to strict proof of the signage that was present.

6.4 The BPA CoP Section 21.1 requires the Claimant to have signs notifying drivers that ANPR camera technology is in use at the car park, and what the captured data will be used for. The Defendant has it on good authority that no such signs were in place at the time of the alleged contravention, and puts the Claimant to strict proof. As such, the Claimant is in breach of the BPA CoP.

7 The Claimant is pursuing the Defendant as the Keeper of the vehicle, as per the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, Schedule 4. The Defendant notes the following points in relation to Schedule 4 of the POFA.

7.1 Sections 2(2) and 2(3) require the Claimant to give adequate notice to the drivers of vehicles via adequate signage, which must specify the sum of the charge. The Defendant has it on good authority that the signage in place at the time of the alleged contravention was in breach of these requirements, and puts the Claimant to strict proof of the signage that was present. This is further reinforced by the BPA CoP Section 18.4.

7.2 Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the Keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The Claim includes an additional £60 fee, which has been described as “contractual costs”, “legal costs” and a “debt recovery instruction fee” on separate occasions. The claim also includes a separate £50 “legal representative’s cost”. These appear to be attempts at double recovery. Not only are such costs not permitted by CPR 27.14, but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs. Given the fact that BW Legal boasted in Bagri v BW Legal Ltd of processing ‘millions’ of claims with an administrative team and only a handful of solicitors, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut-and-paste robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities.

7.3 Section 9 details the explicit requirements of a Notice to Keeper, including the timeline that must be given. The Claimant’s PCN is not compliant with Section 9(2)(f) of the POFA, and misleads the consumer about the statutory timeline. Indeed, the Claimant notes within their PCN that their right to pursue the Keeper is “subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of” the POFA.

8 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.

I've received a court date in November, and a letter from BW Legal responding to my defence.

Regarding point 4 of my defence above - despite my SAR, which included a request for the signage that was in place at the time of the alleged contravention (since replaced with new signage), they have noted that Britannia has received no correspondence on this matter. Britannia's original response to the SAR said that signage would be provided in court. So, they still haven't sent me the actual signage on which their claim relies, and are effectively forcing me into court to see it - surely a breach of procedure as noted in defence point 4.

They've also said my defence is "copied and pasted", "nonsensical", "irrelevant" and "not within the scope of your own knowledge." They've also said it contains "no evidence", but that's what the WS is for, right? They've also offered me a settlement fee, but I'm assuming this is all just scare tactics, and will of course be attending my hearing.

I'm going to prepare my WS and evidence pack, and submit at least 14 days before the hearing, as per the court letter. That's all that's left to do, right?

I have not identified the driver, so in my WS I'm assuming I should just say "the Driver notes that..." whenever I need to refer to information they hold about the alleged contravention? My main concern is that they will try to pass off the new car park signage as the signage that was in place at the time - I have no pictures of it.

Thanks

It's a 2017 PCN, so I won't ID the driver, but it will make the WS and hearing more complicated... I'm assuming I'll just have to say "the Driver notes that..." in everything.

I've also come across the following, regarding recent strike outs for abuse of process: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=6014081

This is very applicable to my case, with all letters from BW Legal and the claim form itself containing additional charges of £60 and £50. I'm going to use these recent cases as the opener in my WS.

I'm almost tempted to go back to BW Legal and get them to pay me to not report them to the SRA! Going to fill out an SRA report form...