Free Traffic Legal Advice

Their letter dated 31st May was our first clue that we might have a fight on our hands. Several more followed - all ignored to date, and all available for viewing at the attached link below. But we have no record of ever having received a PCN from Britannia. I don't appreciate being denied the opportunity of a POPLA appeal.

Briefly, it was dark when we parked, none of the party saw any signage, and I'll be returning to the scene of the 'crime' soon to take some fotos of what we apparently missed.

AOS has been lodged in reply to the N1. I think we have about 10-12 days left for filing a defense. Question is, do we have one? Would appreciate some guidance on how to proceed from here.

https://imgur.com/a/uftOTaN

So no need for signage fotos then?

With an issue date of 19th March, you have until 4pm today, Monday 7th April to submit your defence. If you have already submitted an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS), you would then have until 4pm on Tuesday 22nd April to submit your defence.

If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF but do it right now:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0

Otherwise, here is the defence and link to the draft order that goes with it. You only need to edit your name and the claim number. You sign the defence by typing your full name for the signature and date it. There is nothing to edit in the draft order.

When you're ready you combine both documents as a single PDF attachment and send as an attachment in an email to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and CC in yourself. The claim number must be in the email subject field and in the body of the email just put: "Please find attached the defence and draft order in the matter of Britannia Parking Group Ltd v [your full name] Claim no.: [claim number]."

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

Britannia Parking Group Ltd
Claimant

- and -

[Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant

---

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.

2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4.

3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:

(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);

(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;

(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts)

(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;

(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;

(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;

(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.

4. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft order approved by a district judge at another court. The court struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4. The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:

(i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;

(ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was allegedly in breach of contract;

(iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).

(iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than permitting an amendment.

5. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim for the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4.

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.

Signed:


Date:

Draft Order for the defence

If you follow the advice, DCB Legal will, in due course, discontinue if it is not struck out first.

AoS already filed, but thx for the advice re. deadlines. And the draft defence, which I've only just noticed. I usually get notifications, but there were none this time.

We are private individuals. I used "we" to avoid identifying the driver. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle.

Fotos of signage here:

https://imgur.com/a/Vqcp2KA

Not sure how much they will assist our cause though. They're plastered all over the place - easy enough to see in broad daylight, but we somehow managed to miss them all in the dark.

Then again, we didn't go looking for them either. Last time we visited this car park in May 2022 to celebrate a significant birthday, there were no signs in evidence - at least, to the best of our recollection.   

No defence? Wow! Had no idea that your draft defence was not a defence. Ok, thx b789.

Since this car park doesn't actually charge for parking (you're only required to register your car registration # with the Meze bar or restaurant, as mentioned in the PoC), can I assume that 3(f) of your draft defence doesn't apply in this instance? In which case, I should delete it, right?

Now you’re overthinking it. You’ve deleted the N1SDT Claim Form so I can’t go back and check. However, I am sure the sum claimed is more than the amount on the contractual signage.

What on earth do you mean “free car park”. If it’s free, why are you now defending a claim for more than £0?

Edit the defence at your won risk.

The contractual signs and the NtK all state that the charge for breach of contract is £100. The claim form states that the claim is for £183.36 plus fixed costs.

Assuming that £13.36 is statutory interest at 8%/annum, can you calculate with precision from what date they have applied that interest? Have they applied it to the principal charge or also to the "damages"? If so, what are the "damages"? Are they for breach of contract or are they the so called "debt recovery fees"? If they are debt recovery fees, is the interest applied to the VAT element?

Is the Additional £70 "damages" or "debt recovery fees"? Do you think that they actually paid a penny to anyone for "debt recovery"? It is well known that these debt recovery agents offer their services on a now win, no fee basis. We have evidence of this.

The DHLUC in an impact statement when reviewing the upcoming Private Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 revealed that the average cost to a private parking company for debt recovery was £8.32 per claim, not per PCN. In the Beavis case, the Supreme Court judges held that the initial charge should cover the normal cost of doing business, which for mere mortals includes debt recovery.

Do you see where I am heading with this?

3(f) challenges the Claimant to separate the charge for parking from the damages that are being claimed, does it not? I didn't see how that was relevant in this instance, since there is no charge for parking in this car park. It's all 'damages'.

You misunderstand.

These are the terms used:

'Tariff' - the amount payable by the driver for using the land, subject to the Ts and Cs which in their entirety form the contract. In this case £0.

'Parking charge': a sum, in the nature of a fee or charge, for breaching the contract. In this case the sum of £100 for breaching the condition that the driver was required to register their VRM 'at the kiosk at reception upon arrival'.

As a point of accuracy, the PoC state that £170 is owed by the driver or, in the alternative, the keeper. However, PoFA limits the amount which may be recovered from the keeper in the following way: '..the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount [of the unpaid parking charge] as remains unpaid;

PoFA has nothing to do with how the driver may be pursued and I wouldn't know whether interest or debt recovery costs or whatever may be legitimately recovered in court.

But IMO as regards the keeper the sum is limited to 'that amount of the parking charges[specified in the Notice to Keeper] as remain unpaid'.

So IMO even the question of whether 'charges' or 'damages' is not one which can be asked in the singular because it applies differently to the driver and keeper.