Bw legal/ Britannia Parking court claim letter |
Bw legal/ Britannia Parking court claim letter |
Sun, 17 Feb 2019 - 18:25
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 46 Joined: 10 Sep 2016 Member No.: 87,045 |
Hi if anyone could proof read this response as my defence. To keep it simple I have had 2 parking fines on the same day I moved address so did not receive any of these from brittania parking, the first I heard was from bw legal at my new address asking for £160 per ticket.
I have wrote to them asking for all the evidence and received nothing a letter back with none of my questions answered, I then sent them a sar request which I have received and the final letter back from them before the court claim letter was that there client is pursuing me as the registered keeper and the client is not relying on schedule 4 of the protection of freedoms act 2012 (POFA). So I believe this is my main defence as they can not pursue me as the register keeper and liability can not be transferred. If anyone could take a look at my defence and correct me here if I’m wrong or if things should be amended or added before I send it to the courts. DEFENCE 1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. 2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The particulars of the claim, state the legal basis is brought against the Defendant for ‘breach of terms of parking’ by the driver. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct when parking at Southampton- New Road Barnardo Gardens on 13/04/2018 at 10:04 2.1. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £60 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')' or £100 if not paid within 28 days from the PCN notice. 3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant; was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle; Peugeot under registration xxxx. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. 4. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle. ‘Keeper liability’ under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) is dependent upon full compliance with that Act. It is submitted that the Claimant’s Parking Charge Notice and/or Notice to Keeper failed to comply with the statutory wording and/or deadlines set by the POFA. Any non-compliance voids any right to ‘keeper liability’. 5. Futhermore the claimant has confirmed that they are not relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and pursuing me as the “Registered Keeper”, liability can not be transferred to the “Registered Keeper” and they can only pursue the “Driver”, as the driver has not been identified there should be no grounds to purse me as the “Registered Keeper”, and would suggest that this case is withdrawn with immediate effect. 6. Further and in the alternative, 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. 7. The Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land under the correct address, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation. 8. In addition to the original PCN penalty, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added 'costs' of £60. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs. 9. The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. However, with no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant is fully aware that their claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail. 10. The Claimant may try to rely on Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1453.. However the vehicle is not registered to the Defendant as a company vehicle and there is no Employer liability holding the Defendant liable for the actions of the Driver. 11. 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 can upload any original letters if need be. I have also now sent brittania parking a sar request and also signed into moneyclaim.gov and accepted my acknowledgment of service and ticked defending all of the claim so I heve a bit more time to get this right. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sun, 17 Feb 2019 - 18:25
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sun, 17 Feb 2019 - 18:35
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,898 Joined: 15 Dec 2007 From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town. Member No.: 16,066 |
Does this relate to an existing thread?
-------------------- Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
|
|
|
Sun, 17 Feb 2019 - 18:52
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 46 Joined: 10 Sep 2016 Member No.: 87,045 |
Not as far as I can remember.
|
|
|
Sun, 17 Feb 2019 - 19:03
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,898 Joined: 15 Dec 2007 From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town. Member No.: 16,066 |
Not this one:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...p;#entry1441258 The dates and narrative appear very similar. -------------------- Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
|
|
|
Sun, 17 Feb 2019 - 19:21
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 46 Joined: 10 Sep 2016 Member No.: 87,045 |
Arh yes my bad I though I posted that on another forum. Shall I combine this on that thread?
|
|
|
Sun, 17 Feb 2019 - 19:36
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,898 Joined: 15 Dec 2007 From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town. Member No.: 16,066 |
Hit the report button and ask a mod to merge.
-------------------- Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
|
|
|
Sun, 17 Feb 2019 - 19:42
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 46 Joined: 10 Sep 2016 Member No.: 87,045 |
|
|
|
Sun, 17 Feb 2019 - 20:10
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,898 Joined: 15 Dec 2007 From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town. Member No.: 16,066 |
As you have mentioned Beavis and CJH Films, you could also pre-rebut Elliott v Loake.
You need to explain, in detail, why they have not complied with PoFA, including the relevant paragraph references in the Act. You may also like to refer to their statement that they don't intend to rely upon PoFA to transfer liability to the RK. What other mechanism do they intend to utilise then??? -------------------- Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 09:16 |