Brittania PCN and BW Legal

Coupon-mad · 27 February 2019 at 11:39PM

You need to delete the number glitches you've copied from point #3 as they are not meant to be there, they were caused by MSE forum a few months back.

Also, add a point #5 and move the next numbers down:

5. The Claimant has actively refused in recent communications, to supply the following (their words repeated):

''Landowner agreement - You are not entitled to business sensitive information, it will only be supplied at court, as evidence and not before.''
''Contract with the driver - The contract is on the signage in the car park. A copy of the signage will be provided as evidence at court.''
''Picture packs - A copy of the signage will be provided as evidence at court''.

5.1. The Defendant avers that this Claimant appears content, and has shown clear intent, to ambush the Defendant with the full particulars and photo evidence, either at or shortly before trial. This is a breach of the CPRs and the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, placing this Defendant at a substantial disadvantage when it comes to filing an informed Witness Statement.

5.2. The Defendant being forced to prepare for the later stages and hearing effectively blind to these vital details is surely an abuse of process, and constitutes wholly unreasonable conduct for which there can be no justification.

Then make this #6 and don't try to guess what the signs said, if you have no photo:

5. Further and in the alternative - whilst the Defendant is having to guess what a typical Britannia sign might have said, due to the Claimant withholding this information - it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. [STRIKE]They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked'.[/STRIKE]

pcnhater · 28 February 2019 at 10:43AM

Thanks a lot. I will make these amends and submit my defence later today.

pcnhater · 28 February 2019 at 12:24PM

I have filed my defence by emailing on [EMAIL="ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk"]ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk[/EMAIL] .

I have still not received details requested in SAR. They are now saying that address i have provided (as verification) is not the one they have on file. I replied and said they can send my SAR through the post on the address they are communicating with me. Do I need to do anything else?

I no longer own the car so don't have VC form.

Coupon-mad · 28 February 2019 at 1:53PM

Which address do you want as your address for service, when it comes to them sending you their DQ, ad WS and evidence?

You are allowed to say which is your address for service, so do so! Make it clear to the PPC and the solicitor, ''my address for service is'' xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx if you want the paperwork to come to your correct address.

And on your DQ, the next form N180, state your address and note next to it 'THIS IS MY ADDRESS FOR SERVICE' in capitals.

pcnhater · 17 May 2019 at 11:19AM

My case has been sent to the court closer to me and awaiting hearing date. In meantime, I have received a letter from BW Legal stating that my defence is copy and paste and is absolute nonsense (made me laugh though). I am really itching to post the letter here so everyone can read the comic. Is that ok?

They have provided screenshot of the car and T&C written on the board. This image is taken probably 2 feet from the board and yet I can;t read terms and conditions.

They have offered £180 to settle it which i am not going to accept.

fortunately, I paid the ticket and displaye don the screen so in the absence of terms and conditions stating i can only park in the bay and my car not blocking anyone (as a result i didn't enter into any agreement) so i am not liable to pay anything. Is this reasonable defence?

I now need to put together witness statement and will post draft version very soon.

Coupon-mad · 17 May 2019 at 12:12PM

I have received a letter from BW Legal stating that my defence is copy and paste and is absolute nonsense (made me laugh though). I am really itching to post the letter here so everyone can read the comic. Is that ok?

Yes but you will find it is already posted on other threads, so it is just a template (ironic that they criticise people for that!).

Let's see your WS and planned list of evidence.

Castle · 17 May 2019 at 12:41PM

pcnhater wrote: »

My case has been sent to the court closer to me and awaiting hearing date. In meantime, I have received a letter from BW Legal stating that my defence is copy and paste and is absolute nonsense (made me laugh though). I am really itching to post the letter here so everyone can read the comic. Is that ok?

It's not the only thing which is "copy & paste" as the claimant appears to be "Britannia Parking Ltd" as per post 21; if so, then they got the wrong claimant again!

pcnhater · 17 July 2019 at 10:34PM

Ok Guys, time has come for me to prepare Witness statement . I have prepared a draft version and will appreciate if someone can take a look and help me correct or reword as required.

BW Legal has provided pictures showing car park and a sign. Car pictures have date and a time stamp but sign picture does not have. Sign picture is also taken on a sunny and bright day compared to cloudy and gloomy day when car pictures were taken.

I am happy to PM pictures if it will help you to make it clear. I am aware that i will need to improve the formatting which i will do once changes have been made.

WITNESS STATEMENT

[FONT=&quot]I, [NAME] of [ADDRESS] am the defendant in this case.

1. I am unrepresented with no exposure to Court proceedings. I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.

2. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my personal knowledge they are true to the best of the information available to me.

3. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement supporting my defence as already filed.

4. I assert that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Background[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]5. On the [DATE], driver parked the car in a car park and paid a parking ticket and displayed on the windscreen.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]5 b). When driver parked the vehicle, there were no signs showing non-parking restricted area or access way. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]5 c) In December 2018, I received a letter from BW Legal representing Britannia Parking Group Ltd to pay the parking charge and additional cost[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]5 d) On [SAR DATE], I sent a SAR request (see evidence X). I only received photos of my car and the parking sign on [DATE] (5 months after SAR).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]6. CLAIMANT HAS NO LEGAL STANDING TO BRING A CLAIM AGAINST THE DEFENDANT

7.The claimant is not the landowner and has failed to supply any contract clearly stating they have legal permission to pursue parking contraventions on behalf of the landowner. Requests for this contract information have been denied because with the defendant stating the claimant is "not entitled to business sensitive information". (see email evidence XXX) Without this contract the claimant has no legal basis upon which to claim any sum from the defendant.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]SIGNAGE AT THE SITE

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8. The Claimant has also failed to provide a map of the car park showing where signs were displayed.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]9. The Claimant has provided 4 pictures of my car taken from all four sides of the car but no parking sign can be seen in the background [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]10. The Claimant has provided a picture of the signage allegedly from the Car Park where alleged contravention occurred but this picture is not dated and also this picture is taken on a clear sunny day whereas pictures of the car allegedly showing contravention are taken on a cloudy day. These are inadmissable as evidence as there is no proof that such sign was in place on the date of alleged parking contravention.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]11. The Claimant has not provided any proof that picture of the signage belongs to the same Car Park where alleged contravention occurred. In addition to that the location on the Parking Charge Notice is Farnborough whereas the location displayed on the signage in the picture is Farnborough Station[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]12. The Claimant claims that car was parked in a non-parking restricted area or access way but clearly there are no signs (or yellow lines) showing in the background of the car to prove that signs were displayed to clearly show which areas are non-parking restricted area [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]DOUBLE RECOVERY COST
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
13. In my case, the truth is that no £60 payment has been made to a debt collector because Trace Debt Recovery are known to send letters for parking firms on a 'no collection, no fee' basis. This is an abuse of process in trying to recover a sum vastly above the parking charge, a sum which was not only never paid, but which also falls foul of the CPRs regarding justification and proportionality of standard costs. The Claimant and their solicitors have knowingly misled the Court and the Claimant is put to strict proof or to explain their abuse of process in adding to the claim non-existent 'damages/debt collection' costs.

14. Even if I am wrong and the Claimant can evidence £60 'damages/debt collection letters' expenditure, they are attempting to claim monies that a parking firm are not entitled to recover at all. The authority for this is ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where only £85 was recoverable. The Supreme Court held that the significantly inflated 'parking charge' in such cases already more than comfortably covers the very small costs of operating an automated parking regime (some £15 for the automated process of letters). The Supreme Court stated that the penalty 'parking charge' in these cases is almost entirely profit, so (regardless of whether a Trade Body has been persuaded by its paying members to add a point about 'debt collection costs' into their CoP) the basic costs contained within that business model cannot exist as a separate head of cost.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]15. In light of this, the Court is invited to dismiss the claim and to award my costs of dealing with this claim and attendance at the hearing.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.
Signature
Date[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In Terms of Evidence, I am printing following[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]My Defence[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]My Witness statement[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]My Costs schedule[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Photos provided by BW Legal[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Print email reply to SAR refusing to provide pictures, landowner contract etc[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]SAR Request email[/FONT]

KeithP · 17 July 2019 at 10:51PM

So nothing about 'wrong claimant' then?

Castle hinted at it two months ago - immediately above your latest post.

pcnhater · 18 July 2019 at 8:20AM

They have used correct claimant name as Britannia Parking Group Limited and copy of the charge notice also have same name.

Brittania PCN and BW Legal

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free