Claim form britannia

[cozmo123]

Hello all,

The driver parked in a Britannia Car Park and the mobile app to pay was not working. They did not have bank card/cash with them so they went onto the another app and paid for another car park (same name as where they parked but that was the east car park and they parked in the west car park). Their 3 month old baby was ill and they were in a state of panic as he was very upset so they parked there and went to the pharmacy to get medication for their baby.

Received PCN letters. Phone Britannia and told them who was driving so the claim is in their name.

Claim form receive from DCB legal dated the 24/06/2024.
Have completed the AOS. I have until 29th July to submit my defence but would like to reply sooner rather than later!

Can you review their defence below as they are not sure whether to simply state they paid or explain the details of paying for another car park to show their intention was to pay?

I know they will have to use a template (can someone link this please) but I am just posting 2 drafts they have for the facts about of the case.


DRAFT 1
The defendant parked in the car park in order to collect medication from the pharmacy. The defendant’s young baby had a viral infection and was extremely upset throughout the journey.

The defendant attempted to pay for the parking session using the appropriate mobile phone app however the mobile app was not working. The defendant did not have cash or a physical bank card with them and hence could not use the pay machine located in the car park. The defendant proceeded to use another mobile app to search for the car park but could not locate the car park on the other app and in a state of panic, due to her young baby crying profusely, paid for the closest car park she could find. This clearly shows the defendant had the intention to pay for the parking session.

In addition, there was no Parking Charge Notice (PCN) attached to the defendant’s car windscreen when the defendant got back to the car. So, the defendant was not aware that they got a Parking Charge Notice (PCN).



DRAFT 2
The defendant parked in the car park in order to collect medication from the pharmacy. The defendant’s young baby had a viral infection and was extremely upset throughout the journey.
The defendant denies not paying for the parking session. If there was a problem it was caused by the trader's unclear instructions, opaque terms and lack of a clear Location Code system.

In addition, there was no Parking Charge Notice (PCN) attached to the defendant’s car windscreen when the defendant got back to the car. So, the defendant was not aware that they got a Parking Charge Notice (PCN).


I will post the claim and images of the car park soon

[ULA]

tag des8

[cozmo123]

I have attached images of the particulars of claim and parking signs

[des8]

Posting your defence early will not speed up the court process, if that was your hope!
Better to take your time and get right, rather than rush it.

Bear in mind that for DCB Legal this is a numbers game.
They issue hundreds of these claims weekly , with virtually the same unchanged template wording (e.g. they don't even state the number of PCNs or whether or not the defendant is the driver or keeper.. basically it is a menu from which they pick and chose and is close to being an abuse of process)
You need to present a strong defence across a number of points & resist the pressure they will exert to encourage you to pay to avoid court.
If you do that they often discontinue the claim shortly before the scheduled hearing which will be some months down the line.

Presumably payment was made to a Britannia account, and they were told full details i.e. date, time, amount registration number?

could you please post up a copy of the original parking charge?

[cozmo123]

des8 Sorry, I don't have copies of the original parking charge from November

[des8]

If you have sent the Subject Access Request to Britannia and the CPR31.14 request to DCB Legal you should be sent a copy of the PCN.

When you have it, or on 23rd July if one doesn't arrive, give us a nudge on here to advise on your defence

[cozmo123]

Hi, sorry about the late reply. My defence is due Monday 4pm. I appreciate anybody having a look! This is what they email me when I asked for correspondence.

[cozmo123]

On a separate note, my husband needs to post his own defence. On a separate day, in the same car park, I parked the car and had the same issue with the app. The claim is in his name. He thinks he should simply write that he was not driving along with the template. Is this ok? and does anyone have the link for the template please.

[des8]

I did ask that you start separate threads for the two claims, as it becomes quite confusing dealing with different claims on one thread!



How many cars involved?
Who is registered keeper?
Were the alleged parking events on different days?

[des8]

Bearing in mind you are defending the claim as presented to the court I would be thinking along the following lines.
This is your defence (not your husband's) and you should check it and any references in it (e.g. wording on the signs) carefully.


.The Defendant received the claim xxx from Britannia Parking on dd/mm/yy

1..Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.

2The defendant avers the Claimant's statement of case fails to give adequate information to enable the Defendant to properly assess the Defendant's position with regards the claim.

3.This claim appears to be for an unpaid parking charge(s) following a breach (breaches) of contract (s). It is unclear how many parking charges there are.

4.It is admitted that the Defendant is the keeper of Vehicle registration number xxxxxxxx

5. The Claimant's Particulars of Claim are unclear on whether the Defendant was the driver or was the keeper of the vehicle at the time of each of the alleged events

6.On the dd/mm/yy the Defendant sent a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the Claimant’s statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to DCB Legal Ltd, Direct House, Greenwood Drive, Runcorn, WA7 1UG.

7. DCB Legal Ltd has not sent any of these documents to the Defendant.

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

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

10. Without prejudice to the foregoing paragraphs, the Defendant intends to respond to the allegations raised in the Particulars of Claim as best he is able.

11.The signage in the car park refers to a charge of £100 plus unspecified additional costs/recovery charges

12.If the Defendant is being sued as Keeper the Claimant is only entitled to recover the Parking charge as Schedule 4 condition 4(5) of POFA 2012 provides that the maximum amount which may be recovered from the registered keeper is the total amount of the unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to the registered keeper. Therefore, any associated costs in incurred by the Claimant in connection with the PCN(s) are not recoverable.

13.Alternatively if the Defendant is being sued as the driver she asserts the “additional charges” term on the parking sign is contrary to the requirement of good faith and causes a significant imbalance under the contract to the detriment of the Defendant.

14.Section 68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.( CRA 2015) requires that every term of a consumer contract must be transparent and expressed in a plain and intelligible language.

15.The Defendant contends that the term referring to the charges on the signage was neither transparent nor intelligible in that it only refers to unspecified additional charges/recovery charges.

16.It fails to explain what charges the claimant seeks to recover, and is also contrary to CRA2015 Schedule2 (10 & 14)

17.Consequently, the term is unfair and is not binding on the Defendant pursuant to section 62 of the CRA2015)

18.In Parking Eye vs Beavis ([2015] UKSC 67. Case ID. UKSC 2015/0116. the S C found the parking charge (£85) was a genuine estimate of the costs of operating the parking scheme including losses suffered by the operator if its terms and conditions were not complied with (see paras 188 and 193 of the judgment).

19.In this claim unspecified costs additional to the parking charge may involve an element of double recovery and is an abuse of process that may taint the entirety of the claim and permit the Court to strike out the claim (CPR3 4 (2) (b) )

20. Whilst not binding on this court the Defendant respectfully refers to the following case: G4QZ465V (Excel Parking Services Ltd vs Wilkinson - 1st July 2020) where District Judge Jackson considered a similar claim to be an abuse of process under the The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Sch 2 and section 61/ 61(1)/ 67). He found that striking out the claim was the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court could be show

21. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all.

Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.