Claim Form - urgent help needed please!

[EL12345]

One thing I forgot to mention earlier is that when sending a SAR to BW Legal, I wrote the following:

"I would suggest that you delay any action as I am also waiting for Britannia Parking to respond to a SAR. I would like to add that your client has failed to comply with the requirements of POFA 8 (4):
The notice must be given by—
(a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
As such, they cannot hold me, the keeper, liable for the actions of the driver."

In their posted reply, they provided no response to the above. Does this affect my case at all, or do I dismiss it as a template response from them.

[charitynjw]

Re section 9 or whatever, if it's a possibility, just put "*It is the Defendant's belief that..........."

What's the worst that can happen?

& in my view it's generally better to add something & get it a bit wrong.
It might be harder (if you don't mention something at this stage) to try & add it later.

(& tactically it sometimes works. Once your defence is filed, it is sent to the other party. They might see it & think "What have I missed", & give up in order to chase lower-hanging fruit!)

*You can always say later that, if the Claimant had disclosed at an earlier stage....etc

[charitynjw]

& if it were me I wouldn't offer to 'stay' proceedings.
At this stage it's just a paper shuffling excercise....if everything is present (Claimant's claim, Defendant's defence, etc, it is moved on to the next stage in the process.

Britnnia/BWL are currently digging up more history than Bill Oddie ever has!

[charitynjw]

I do tend to think that they intend to action this (& other threads concerning Britannia/BWL) via common law breach of contract rather than PoFA.

[EL12345]

I do tend to think that they intend to action this (& other threads concerning Britannia/BWL) via common law breach of contract rather than PoFA.

Thank you so much for how helpful you've been! I've included bits about breach of contract and PoFA in my defence. Based on this, do you think my amended defence is good or needs more work? Also, I've been told on another thread that it might be a good idea to remove sections 9 and 10, and also the latter half of section 8. Does anyone else agree?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXXXX

BRITANNIA PARKING LTD (Claimant)

-and-

XXXX XXXX (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________


1. The Defendant (Miss XXXX XXXX, DOB XX.XX.XXXX, residing at XXXXXXXXX) is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question (XXXX XXX). The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at Bournemouth Uni Executive Business Centre car park on 03.05.2016. The Defendant denies that The Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The signage in the car park is of a ‘forbidding’ nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship.
2.1. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s69) applies and the interpretation that most favours a consumer must prevail; that being that the driver(s) did not see or accept the sum the claimant says they did.

3. Signs are located at a distance, unlit, and placed so high creating an illegible condition to read the terms and conditions required to enter a contract. Upon further inspection of the cark park, signage stating terms and conditions were not visible, obvious or readable from any location when inside a vehicle.
3.1 The terms on The Claimant's signage are displayed in an area which cannot be read from a passing vehicle and is in such a position posted over Xfthigh. That anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily.
3.2 It is denied that The Claimant's sign sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear or visible manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them It is, therefore, denied that The Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
3.3 The Defendant requests evidence of where the car was parked and from photos taken how the signage appeared on the material date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. The Defendant requires how the signage appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. The Defendant submits that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

4. This case can be distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. As far as it can be ascertained, based upon the vague particulars of claim, it seems reasonable to assume the driver of the vehicle did not see the signage as signage displayed in an area which cannot be read from a passing vehicle and is in such a position posted over Xfthigh. The defendant believes this distinguishes this case from Parking Eye vs Beavis [2015] none of this applies in this material case

5. The Claimant has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4 in the following ways:
5.1. No Notice to Keeper was delivered.
5.2. The maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case the amount unknown as the Notice to Keeper was never served/delivered. The claim includes an additional £60, for estimated legal costs, which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. This is because The Claimant later adds more legal costs to the claim.

6. In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, The Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported additional costs. The added costs are an artificially invented figure, which represents an attempt to circumvent the small claims costs rules.

7. The Defendant has no knowledge of the Claimant's legal right to control parking on the site and pursue claims relating to its use. The Claimant is put to proof to prove that it has such rights

8. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.

9. Please let it be noted that The Defendant has not received the Subject Access Request (SAR) back at the time of forming this defence. As the full particulars are not known at this time, the defence may need to be amended.

The Defendant believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.


Name
Signature
Date

[charitynjw]

Thank you so much for how helpful you've been! I've included bits about breach of contract and PoFA in my defence. Based on this, do you think my amended defence is good or needs more work? Also, I've been told on another thread that it might be a good idea to remove sections 9 and 10, and also the latter half of section 8. Does anyone else agree?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXXXX

BRITANNIA PARKING LTD (Claimant)

-and-

XXXX XXXX (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________


1. The Defendant (Miss XXXX XXXX, DOB XX.XX.XXXX, residing at XXXXXXXXX) is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question (XXXX XXX). The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at Bournemouth Uni Executive Business Centre car park on 03.05.2016.

2. The Defendant denies that The Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

3. The Claimants statement of case fails to give adequate information to enable me to properly assess my position with regards the claim. In particular, the Claimant has not made clear whether their claim is via trespass, common law breach of contract or via the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

4. The signage in the car park is of a ‘forbidding’ nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship.

.5. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s69) applies and the interpretation that most favours a consumer must prevail; that being that the driver(s) did not see or accept the sum the claimant says they did.

6. Signs are located at a distance, unlit, and placed so high creating an illegible condition to read the terms and conditions required to enter a contract. Upon further inspection of the cark park, signage stating terms and conditions were not visible, obvious or readable from any location when inside a vehicle.

7. The terms on The Claimant's signage are displayed in an area which cannot be read from a passing vehicle and is in such a position posted over Xfthigh. That anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily.

8. It is denied that The Claimant's sign sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear or visible manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them It is, therefore, denied that The Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

9. The Defendant requests evidence of where the car was parked and from photos taken how the signage appeared on the material date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. The Defendant requires how the signage appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. The Defendant submits that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

10. This case can be distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. As far as it can be ascertained, based upon the vague particulars of claim, it seems reasonable to assume the driver of the vehicle did not see the signage as signage displayed in an area which cannot be read from a passing vehicle and is in such a position posted over Xft high. The defendant believes this distinguishes this case from Parking Eye vs Beavis [2015] none of this applies in this material case

11 The Claimant has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4 in the following ways:
11.1. No Notice to Keeper was delivered.
11.2. The maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case the amount unknown as the Notice to Keeper was never served/delivered. The claim includes an additional £60, for estimated legal costs, which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. This is because The Claimant later adds more legal costs to the claim.

12. In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, The Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported additional costs. The added costs are an artificially invented figure, which represents an attempt to circumvent the small claims costs rules.

13. The Defendant has no knowledge of the Claimant's legal right to control parking on the site and pursue claims relating to its use. The Claimant is put to proof to prove that it has such rights

14. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.

15. The Defendant respectfully requests the court orders the Claimants to provide the necessary documentation in order for The Defendant to fully plead his case else the Claim should stand struck out.

116. In the event that the relevant documents are received from the Claimant, the Defendant will then be in a position to amend his defence, and would ask that the Claimants bear the costs of the amendment.


The Defendant believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.


Name
Signature
Date

Just some suggestions.

[EL12345]

Thats really helpful thanks! With regards to section 3 - the 'particulars of claim' section of the claim form is very vague, but the previous letters state that the contravention is 'failure to park without a valid P&D or Permit'. Would this still be classed as not making it clear what the claim is? Also, with section 16, is it right to ask the Claimant to cover the cost of amending the defence if they are still within the 30 day return period of the SAR?

Thanks again for your help!

[charitynjw]

I'd leave them in.

What's the worst that can happen?





"I'm sure Botany Bay is over that way, captain!"

[EL12345]

Hi again, I have received a reply from Britannia about my SAR. Am I reading it right - is it over? Or should I still submit my defence? The email is as follows:


Dear XXXX
Thank you for your email.

Please find enclosed your Subject Access Request.

Our records indicate you have 2 PCN’s on our system, however upon further review of these Parking Charge Notices in line with our current procedure, we have cancelled both Parking Charge Notices and no further action will be taken.

The signage in the car park advises you that “Where the Parking Charge remain unpaid beyond 28 days, additional charges in respect of further action may apply.”

The signage also advises that “Personal data may be shared with POPLA, BPA, Debt Recovery or solicitor’s”.

We do not sell on aged debt, this would be a breach of the BPA Code of Practise and therefore, there is no payment. Britannia Parking will always remain as the creditor for the outstanding debt.

Kind Regards,

XXXX
Data Protection Team

[EL12345]

In the SAR they returned, they didn't send any letter expressly stated 'Notice to Keeper', only ones titled 'Parking Charge Notice' and 'Parking Charge Notice Final Reminder'. The dates between the contravention (03/05/16 and 09/05/16) and the 'date of this notice' (18.07.16 for both tickets) are outside the 56 day period. Is this why they have given up?

If anyone is interested in following my case or looking at the letters, they are on page 2 of my Pepipoo forum: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?...&#entry1473692

[charitynjw]

Well, it certainly sounds as if they've seen sense & given up.

Keep all the documents, letters in a nice safe place.

For about 6 years!

If they do pass on the data, they could be in breach of DPA/GDPR.

Oh, & well done you!

You could phone them to make sure that they formally discontinue at court.
& email the court with a copy of that letter to place on filer. (Put the court claim no + 'Defendant' in subject box.)

Not that I'm suggesting that they are low-down sneaky ba

[EL12345]

charitynjw I honestly would have given up by now if not for your help and this forum, I really appreciate it!

[charitynjw]

d people!

[charitynjw]

charitynjw I honestly would have given up by now if not for your help and this forum, I really appreciate it!

https://uk.images.search.yahoo.com/s...&fr=chrf-yff26

[charitynjw]

As ostell quite rightly points out, it is important to still treat it as a live case until you have been given formal notification of discontinuance.