Britannia Parking, Parking Charge Notice |
Britannia Parking, Parking Charge Notice |
Mon, 11 Dec 2017 - 22:27
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 11 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,508 |
Hi all,
Today (11th December 2017) the registered Keeper received not 1 but 2 Parking Charge Notices for the same period of time through the post! The relevant details are as follows (on both PCN's): Date of notice: 7th December 2017 Date of contravention: 2nd December 2017. Contravention: Parked longer than the maximum time permitted (the driver was in the car park for 2.5 hrs, 30 mins over the 2 hrs free period). -------------- Now the interesting bit: The first PCN states: Entry Details: 02/12/2017 at 12:04:44 Exit Details: 02/12/2017 at 14:33:51 The second PCN states: Entry Details: 02/12/2017 at 12:04:45 Exit Details: 02/12/2017 at 14:33:50 the notice appears to have standard wording of recent Britannia Parking PCN's as noted on the forum. I have read that in the 'soft' appeal people often state that the company has not complied with paragraph 9 of schedule 4. In this PCN Britannia state: [/i] 'You are notified under paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full. As we do not know the drivers name or current address, and if you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time, you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice to them. You are advised that if, after 29 days from the date given, the Parking Charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the Parking Charge from the registered keeper. This warning is given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of that Act.[/i] Is the above compliant with the schedule. I note that it gives the time of 29 days, not 28 days and also states '...from the date give'. From the legislation I understand it should state 'after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given'. Has the company complied by stating 29 days and not stating from which given date? Also the signage was not clear in the car park. Shall I just use the soft appeal to the parking company, as per MSE http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822 initially (the one in blue)? In addition to the standard letter do you think I should add that their machine appears to be faulty as it has sent out two PCN's in the space of a few seconds!? Thanks for any help, EDIT I forgot to add, there was no where to pay for a ticket, even if the driver wanted to! This post has been edited by Parking Appeal: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 - 22:29 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 11 Dec 2017 - 22:27
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 20:19
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 11 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,508 |
Hi all,
Need your advice again! In short, both PCN's (issued at the same time) were appealed with POPLA. Britannia parking withdrew one PCN (gesture of goodwill) and proceeded to POPLA with the other. POPLA ultimately decided the appeal was unsuccessful. We have received a couple of letters from a debt collection agency, we have not responded. Within the last week we received a letter from bwlegal. It states: "We have been instructed by Britannia Parking in relation to the balance due for the PCN..... ….The balance due includes the GBP 100 PCN charge plus Our Clients initial legal costs of GBP 60 which are detailed in the car park or signage terms and conditions. Our Client's terms and conditions are clearly displayed in our client signage. As you have failed to make a payment or raise an appeal within 28 days from the date of the PCN, the Balance Due remains outstanding and we require payment in full within 16 days from the date of this letter. If you fail to make payment or provide reasons for non-payment within the specified timeframe, we will seek Our Client's instructions to commence legal proceedings against you in the County Court upon being served with a Letter of Claim pursuant to the Pre-action Protocol for Debt Claims as contained in the Civil Procedures Rules. County Court Proceedings In the event County Court proceedings are issued, you may be liable for Court fees, further solicitors' costs and statutory interest. If Our Client successfully obtains a County Court Judgement ("CCJ") against you, then a CCJ may be recorded on your credit file for 6 years unless you satisfy the CCJ in full within a month of the CCJ being entered. A CCJ on your credit file may affect your ability to obtain future credit and may affect your employability. Our Client also reserves the right to commence enforcement proceedings against you for recovery of the Balance Due" The letter is factually incorrect as the PCN's were appealed through POPLA, but I suspect they just change the details at the top and send these letters in bulk without personalizing the body of the letter! Is the advice still to ignore these letters or would you advise responding denying any claim by Britannia Parking? Any help would be gratefully received. |
|
|
Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 22:15
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Ignore this
Not a lba Or respond, stating why you disagree with popla, and have noticed their obvious template, seen on the internet multiple time. You also require a full explanation of how legal costs can be claimed in the small claims court, when cpr27 explicitly disallows this. Failure to justify this baseless threat will result in a complaint to the sea about your unprofessional conduct. |
|
|
Sat, 1 Sep 2018 - 22:33
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 11 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,508 |
It appears Britannia Parking are potentially getting litigious, we have now received a 'Letter of Claim' from BW Legal for this alleged incident.
I have used the standard template on MSE and have tweaked it slightly to add in some additional points relevant to the case. I would appreciate any feedback on whether I need to add or remove anything else before I send the letter. BW legal Enterprise House Apex View Leeds West Yorkshire LS11 9BH 1st Sept 2018 Your Ref: Dear Sirs, I am in receipt of your Letter of Claim dated XXXXXXXXX. Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon. Your client must know that on 01 October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. Since proceedings have not yet been issued, the new protocol clearly applies and must be complied with. Your letter lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 6 and 7) Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order your client to comply with its pre-action obligations, and when costs come to be considered. As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction applicable pre-1 October and the Protocol which applies thereafter (and your client should likewise be aware of them). As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is astounding that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and unevidenced 'Letter of Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol. Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction and now the Protocol. I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents: 1. An explanation of the cause of action 2. Whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper. 3. Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 4. What the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked and for how long? 5. Detailed breakdown of how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, including the breakdown of the £60 cost titled ‘Total Debt Recovery Costs’? 6. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract. 7. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details. 8. A plan showing where any signs were displayed 9. Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed). 10. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest, administrative or other charges added. 11. Please provide details of ALL Parking Charge Notices (“PCN”) issued by your Client for this alleged parking incident and subsequent action taken in respect of these PCN. Your letter dated XXXXXXXXXX 2018 states “... you have failed to make a payment or raise an appeal within 28 days from the date of the PCN....”, this is factually incorrect and has caused me distress and confusion, I seek clarity of the facts in this case. In your recent correspondence to me you have referred to the £60 of the £160 ‘Balance’ as ‘Total Debt Recovery Costs’, I refer you to a letter dated XXXXXXX 2018, addressed to myself which refers to the £60 charge as “.... Our Client’s initial legal costs....”. I am confused with your correspondence to me as they use contradictory terms, in addition to point 5 above, please clarify exactly what these charges are. I would like to refer you to CPR 27.14 which explicitly disallows you from claiming legal costs. If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) ; Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and © and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol. Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided. Yours faithfully Any suggestions guidance would be appreciated. Thanks. |
|
|
Mon, 3 Sep 2018 - 07:14
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
I dont like this, as it is a bit old now. Its been nearly a year since the PAP was updated so calling it "new" seems poor.
I owuld ditc ha little of it and streamline it. Specify exactly how they failed. |
|
|
Sat, 8 Sep 2018 - 21:08
Post
#25
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 1 Joined: 18 Mar 2018 Member No.: 97,107 |
Hi Parking Appeal
I sent you a pm a long time ago in the past as a relative of mine also received a speculative invoice from Britannia at the end of December 2017 for an alleged overstay. After the usual debt collector demands post POPLA they also received a letter of claim from BW Legal that I am currently drafting a response to in order to send asap. It sounds like it is identical to yours. It seems that Britannia are very protective of this site as based on the sudden number of threads on MSE that it is without doubt a honey trap. I'm assuming they've decided to get litigious based on bogus advice from BW Legal and the fact the car park is a similar max stay free car park a la Beavis. Even though court action may soon be initiated, I would strongly recommend (as I have done) to contact CBRE, the property management agent for the Portswood Centre. Specifically there is a dedicated website for the Southampton CBRE office. Send a strongly worded complaint about Brtiannia's behaviour to one of the directors that can be contacted on that website explaining the harrassment, distress and any wrongdoings of their agent. Include any proof of patronage. They've gotten back to me asking for the PCN number to investigate. Could amount to nothing but if they state they've explicitly told Britannia to cease pursuing the alleged debt and Britannia continue then that is a strong point to add to any defence. This post has been edited by LoneStarState: Sat, 8 Sep 2018 - 21:09 |
|
|
Sat, 6 Jul 2019 - 23:03
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 11 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,508 |
Hi,
The time has come and I have received a County Court Claim form from Britannia parking for one of the two tickets issued. I will be acknowledging service to get the full 33 days and have started writing a defence. To assist with my defence I seek the assistance of those in the know on this site. High level case summary: - The case relates to an overstay of circa 29 minutes on a 2 hour free car park. - Britannia Parking issued two PCN's for the same event, albeit the time on each were different by one second (please see first post on thread for details). - Appealed to Britannia parking who issued POPLA codes for both invoices. - I submitted my appeal to POPLA for both tickets and Britannia withdrew one as a 'gesture of goodwill' (very nice of them)! - POPLA rejected my appeal on the second PCN. - Britannia have pursued me for the second, with the usual debt collection letters etc and now a County Court Claim form. - I have submitted an extensive SAR to Britannia parking, they have failed to respond to all the points where I requested PII (I am pursuing separately with ICO). - The information that they did respond with in relation to the SAR shows that they applied to DVLA on two separate occasions for my personal information. This is clearly in breach of GDPR and BPA Guidelines as they should check any ANPR hit for errors before pursuing. Had they checked then they would have realised it was two PCN's for the same event and immediately cancelled one. Instead they have requested my details twice, clearly excessive and in breach of GDPR. In addition to the points that the signage is insufficient and not legible can/ should I also add the following in my defence (obviously I will add more detail): - Britannia have breached their own contract by issuing two PCN's for the same event, therefore they cannot pursue for the remaining PCN? - Should I mention anything about the data protection breach (the fact that they requested my details from DVLA twice, at the same time for the same event). Would this have any impact on the case? Photographs both taken by myself and Britannia, landowner agreement, BWLegal communication (including original PCN), and Crown Court Claim form can be found at teh following link: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1TL7yrDYx7...kPtBgIcwsdIdc4i I have read the other threads about other issues to raise in my defence. Thanks in advance, This post has been edited by Parking Appeal: Sun, 7 Jul 2019 - 18:23 |
|
|
Mon, 8 Jul 2019 - 06:49
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
1) Dont "will do". Just do it. online, today, no delays
2) Date of issue please 3) newbies thread, MSE parking forum, post 2. Read it. Bookmark it. Follow it. Give syou example CONCISE defences. Noone here will write your defence for you. 4) No, issuing two PCN doesnt mean both are automatically void. Thats nonsense reasoning. 5) a data proteciton brech doesnt automatically make it void TBH youre on usual defence points: Keeper liability, assuming you have already checked that (at POPLA did you appeal on this?), signage, landowner authority etc. Anything already dealt with by POPLA *properly* you shouldnt use again, but make sure POPLA actually did do it properly. Also your letter of claim was 09.2018 - getting on for 9 months ago?? |
|
|
Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 21:46
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 11 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,508 |
Thanks for the reply.
I acknowledged the County Court Letter on the 7th July 2019. The County Court letter is dated 5th July 2019. I am preparing a defence and will share a redacted version for this forums expert opinion shortly. The Letter of Claim is dated 28th August 2018 so getting on for a year ago! It was 'put on hold' whilst Britannia Parking prepared material in response to my objection to the Letter of Claim stating that there was insufficient details in it. Britannia parking took months to respond! 1) Dont "will do". Just do it. online, today, no delays 2) Date of issue please 3) newbies thread, MSE parking forum, post 2. Read it. Bookmark it. Follow it. Give syou example CONCISE defences. Noone here will write your defence for you. 4) No, issuing two PCN doesnt mean both are automatically void. Thats nonsense reasoning. 5) a data proteciton brech doesnt automatically make it void TBH youre on usual defence points: Keeper liability, assuming you have already checked that (at POPLA did you appeal on this?), signage, landowner authority etc. Anything already dealt with by POPLA *properly* you shouldnt use again, but make sure POPLA actually did do it properly. Also your letter of claim was 09.2018 - getting on for 9 months ago?? |
|
|
Wed, 10 Jul 2019 - 09:36
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
No doubt the claim included some form of interest; yo uwill of course poitn out that the delay is *entirely* of their own making, and they should not be entitled to claim interest on teh whole sum; in addition no debt (which is denied exists) was due until the offer in teh NtK expired; no doubt they have calcualted interest from day 1. THis is ALSO not allowed.
Claiming sums they KNOW they are not entitled to is an abuse of process, for which you ask the court to strike the whole claim. |
|
|
Wed, 10 Jul 2019 - 21:05
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 11 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,508 |
I have written a first draft of my defence. Please can the experts on this forum review and comment.
All assistance is much appreciated. I have uploaded relevant documents and photographs to Google Drive (the folder contains photos I took recently) and the other photos (on the main page) are the ones that Britannia Parking provided as their evidence. Docs and pics link: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1TL7yrDYx7...kPtBgIcwsdIdc4i IN THE COUNTY COURT CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx BETWEEN: BRITANNIA PARKING GROUP LIMITED T/A BRITANNIA PARKING (Claimant) -and- xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant) ________________________________________ DEFENCE ________________________________________ 1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled the sum claimed, either all or in part. 2. The Defendant is the registered keeper. The Claim relates to an alleged debt from an unsettled PCN issued on the 2nd December 2017 at Southampton - Portswood Centre Southampton. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant a £100 'parking charge'. Unclear Particulars of Claim 3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Claimant is seeking the sum of £111.60 from the Defendant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on the 2nd December 2017 at Southampton – Portswood Centre Southampton at 14:33:51. The PCN relates to the vehicle XXXXXXX and the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. The Claimants Particulars of Claim have failed to identify a Cause of Action, and the Claimant 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. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. 4. 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. 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. Unclear and Inadequate Signage 5. 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. The signs are illegible whilst driving a vehicle into the car park and are difficult to identify and read once the vehicle is parked. The only legible section of the terms and conditions sign is ‘Welcome to the Portswood Centre’. 6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 7. 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, and to pursue payment by means of litigation. 8. This Claimant uses ANPR camera systems to process data but fails to comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information' (the ICO Code). This is both a specific Data Protection and BPA Code of Practice breach. The Supreme Court Judges in Beavis held that a Code of Practice is effectively 'regulation' for this blatantly rogue industry, full compliance with which is both mandatory and binding upon any parking operator. 9. The ICO Code applies to all ANPR systems, and states that the private sector is required to follow it, in order to meet its legal obligations as a data processor. Members of the BPA are required to comply fully with the Data Protection Act (DPA) and all ICO rules and guidelines, as a pre-requisite of being able to use the DVLA KADOE system and in order to enforce parking charges on private land. 10. The Claimant's failures to comply include, but are not limited to the following, and the Claimant is put to strict proof otherwise on all counts: i) Lack of an initial privacy impact assessment, and ii) Lack of an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, considering concepts that would impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle, and iii) Failure to prominently inform a driver in large lettering on clear signage, of the purpose of the ANPR system and the Pay & Display system and how the data captured on both would be used, and iv) Lack of the 'Privacy Notice' required to deliver mandatory information about an individual's right of subject access, under the DPA. At no point has the Defendant been advised how to apply for, and what a data subject's rights are, to obtain all images and data held via a Subject Access Request from the Claimant. 11. This Claimant has therefore failed to meet its legal obligations and has breached principle 1 (at least) of the DPA, as well as the BPA Code of Practice. 12. In a similar instance of DPA failure by excessive and inappropriate use of ANPR cameras - confirmed on this Claimant's Trade Body (BPA) website in a 2013 article urging its members to comply - Hertfordshire Constabulary was issued with an enforcement notice. The force were ordered to stop processing people's information via ANPR until they could comply. The Information Commissioner ruled that the collection of the information was specifically illegal; breaching principle one of the DPA. 13. The ‘ParkingEye v Beavis’ case exposes this charge as unconscionable, with no overriding ‘legitimate interest. To save it from offending against the penalty rule. 14. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at 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, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. Breach of BPA Codes of Practice 15. Under section 21 of the CoP, BPA members are only allowed to use ANPR if they: - Use it to enforce parking in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. - Have clear signs which tell drivers that the operator is using the technology and what the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used for. - Manual quality checks of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. 15.1. The Claimant pursued the Defendant for two PCN’s for the same event. This error was raised with the Claimant, who ignored the appeal and continued to pursue a double charge for the same event, it was only when the matter progressed did the Claimant drop one of the PCN’s as a ‘gesture of goodwill’. The Defendant puts to the Claimant that they have breached guidelines under section 21 of the CoP and GDPR. The Defendant requests that the Claimant provides evidence that checks were carried out before requesting data from DVLA and the PCN’s were issued. Unconscionable and unrecoverable inflation of the 'parking charge' 16. This claim inflates the total to a staggering £246.60, in a clear attempt at double recovery. The Defendant trusts that the presiding Judge will recognise this wholly unreasonable conduct as a gross abuse of process and may consider using the court's case management powers to strike the claim out of the court's own volition. 16.1. The acid test is whether the conduct permits of a reasonable explanation, but the Defendant avers it cannot. 16.2. Not only are such costs not permitted (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 admin team (and only a handful of solicitors), the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste Britannia robo-claims at all. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent by legally qualified staff on preparing a claim in a legal capacity. 16.3. It was held in the Supreme Court in Beavis (where £85 was claimed, and no more) that a private parking charge already includes a very significant and high percentage in profit and more than covers the costs of running an automated regime of template letters. It is also a fact that debt collection agencies act on a no-win-no-fee basis for parking operators, so no such costs have been incurred in truth. Thus, there can be no 'damages' to pile on top of any parking charge claim, and the Claimant knows this, as do their solicitors. The Defendant asks that the Court takes judicial notice of this repeated abuse of consumers rights and remedies, arising from BW Legal clients artificially inflating their robo-claims, which are filed in tens of thousands, per year. 16.4. In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported Solicitor's/ Legal Costs of £110, which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant. 16.5. Whilst £110 may be recoverable in an instance where a claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim, Britannia Parking Ltd have not expended any such sum in this case. This Claimant has a Legal Team with salaried in-house Solicitors and it files hundreds of similar 'cut & paste' robo-claims per month, not incurring any legal cost per case. I put the Claimant to strict proof to the contrary because the in-house Solicitors cannot possibly be believed to be paid in the millions per annum for their services. 17. The added 'legal' cost is in fact an artificially invented figure, which represents a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules and achieve double recovery. 17.1. Similarly, in Somerfield (above) a £75 parking charge was not held to be a penalty but a sum mentioned in the harassing letters of double that amount, almost certainly would be. 18 The Claimant has also added statutory interest of £11.60 to the original charge, for which liability is denied. The Claimant has accrued interest for the period 2nd December 2017 to the 4th July 2019 which is not allowed and an abuse of process. Under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984, it states that simple interest may be included from the date when the cause of action arose. This would be after the Notice to Keeper expired and no earlier, this being 29 days after the 2nd December 2017. 18.1 The Claimant has also unduly delayed proceedings as the letter of claim is dated 28th August 2018, 10 months before the County Court Claim was submitted. Again this is an abuse of process and is a delay entirely of the Claimants making, adding unjust interest to the already inflated sum claimed, for which liability is denied. Conflicting Evidence Provided by Claimant 19. The Claimant has on numerous occasions provided evidential photographs of the signage in situ at the Southampton – Portswood Centre Southampton site to indicate the Defendant has breached the terms and conditions of the site, whilst pursuing a sum of £100. The photographic evidence shows a total sum payable at the site of £85. The evidence has been confusing for the Defendant and is in direct conflict with the charge claimed by the Claimant, therefore it is the Defendants submission that the Claimant has artificially inflated the sum owed. 20. 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 to the best of my knowledge and belief This post has been edited by Parking Appeal: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 - 21:07 |
|
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 21:19
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 11 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,508 |
BUMP.
Please can someone review my defence and comment. Any help on this would be much appreciated. |
|
|
Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 08:16
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
I have a huge worload the next few days.
Can suggest you post on MSE forum as well? They have a few more hands on deck there. Of course you LINK back to this thread so people can see where this comes from. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Wednesday, 17th April 2024 - 07:51 |