Brittania/BW Windscreen PCN Claimform - west Quay Retail Park Southampton SO15 1BA ***Claim Dismissed***

[FTMDave]

If you've never come across these disgusting fleecers before then of course it's only natural to correspond to try to make them see sense.  However, it was always futile because they are, er, disgusting fleecers only interested in £££££.  All you've done is outed yourself as the driver and lost your protection under the Protection of Freedoms Act.

 

However, all is not lost, to put it mildly.  They are on a hiding to nothing in court.  You paid.  They suffered no loss.  Not displaying a ticket is legally "de minimis" (AKA "the law does not deal with trivialities").

 

That's apart from the fact that you did actually display your ticket.

 

Well done on keeping the ticket BTW.

[FTMDave]

Isn't there something displayed on the dashboard near your left windscreen wiper (I mean "left" as in when facing the vehicle)?

[FTMDave]

I was hoping it was the actual ticket, to completely scupper the fleecers' claim!

 

Unfortunately that means that the photos do show areas of the dashboard though.  Is it possible the ticket fell on the floor?

[FTMDave]

The defence is fine.  Good work.

[FTMDave]

In your e-mails.  "I had parked".  "I had a valid parking ticket".  "I had a correctly displayed parking ticket".  "I did indeed have a valid ticket".  Etc.

 

Originally they didn't know who the driver was so the court would have considered whether their paperwork respected the Protection of Freedoms Act and thus created keeper liability - or not.  But now they do know who the driver was as you outed yourself.

 

Not the end of the world - but something to learn from for the future.

 

Their claim is still pants as you paid, they suffered no loss, and you can prove it.

[FTMDave]

2 hours ago, commonsensehasdied said:

I have to post these off tomorrow and I'm genuinely now at the point where it may just be better that I give in and pay the money. I genuinely don't know if I'm up to this.

The forum is quite happy to guide you but as dx says you need to read some similar threads to familiarise yourself with the court process.

 

It makes no sense to give in now, as costs are already included in the  fleecers' claim.  If you pay now, you pay £237.  If by some horror you lose in court - very, very unlikely but let's be pessimistic - you pay £237.  So it's obvious it makes sense to fight this.

 

In fact even if you were to lose in court it's highly likely the judge would disallow the £60 Unicorn Food Tax that the fleecers have made up and you'd pay £177..

[FTMDave]

I've just read your thread from the start.  A few things.

 

1.  You can e-mail the DQ to the court but you should never give the fleecers your e-mail address as they will send lies later on at one second to a court deadline and you'll have no chance to counter.  So send the fleecers their copy by snail mail and get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.  Make damn sure your e-mail address is not shown on the copy of the DQ that you send to the charlatans.

 

2.  At some point in the future you will need to write to the fleecers and tell them not to correspond by e-mail, as you've already given them your e-mail address.  If you still have time you could kill two birds with the DQ.  Enclose a letter:

 

Dear Britannia Parking,

 

Re: claim no. XXXXX, PCN no. XXXXX

 

I enclose my Directions Questionnaire regarding the above-mentioned county court claim.

 

Kindly note that the e-mail address XXXXX@XXXXX used in the past for communications between us is absolutely not to be used for correspondence regarding the court claim.

 

Yours,

 

3.  Can you please upload the original PCN you got from them.  £90 is a strange amount and it would be good to see what they sent you.

Edited August 18, 2022 by FTMDave
Typos

[FTMDave]

On 19/08/2022 at 12:07, dx100uk said:

why does west Quay Retail Park Southampton SO15 1BA ring a bell with me here? @FTMDave

Not a place that springs to mind dx, at least with me.

[FTMDave]

The letter you have received is just hot air from the other side's paper tigers.  It's not from the court.  They are trying to put the wind up you.  Relax, laugh and ignore it.

 

But you would know this already if you'd been reading up and understanding the stages of the court process.  I'm sorry to hear about personal issues but there really is no other way.  Caggers who gen up win in court.  Those who don't, lose.  It really is as simple as that.

 

Please answer dx's questions when you get a moment.

[FTMDave]

When did the court order dated 9 November actually arrive?

[FTMDave]

So you didn't tell us for 16 days including two weekends when people could have helped with your Witness Statement.

 

Your refusal to put work into your case has now come back to bite, and bite hard, a WS is an important legal document and can't just be thrown together in a few hours.

 

You mention personal issues but sadly the court won't give a monkey's.

 

Thursday is a Bank Holiday where I live and I can use some of that free time to help you, but that will mean you missing the court deadline.  Generally a short delay will be overlooked by the court for a Litigant in Person.  Your call.  

 

 

[FTMDave]

Two further things.  As dx says, the pathetic attempt at a threatening letter by BW Legal in post 40 is not a WS. 

 

Have a look at the WS in post 191 here to see what they look like  

 

Hx Parking/gladstones CCJ - Exceeded 1hrs Free - McDonald's Alma Leisure Park Chesterfield CCJ issued thanks to useless parking fines ltd ***Claim Dismissed*** - Page 8 - Private Land Parking Enforcement - Consumer Action Group

 

(sometimes the post count gores wonky, if it's not post 191 it'll be a couple of posts above or below).

If they haven't sent theirs yet, that's good news, it's likely to be late, which means they can hardly moan about yours being late.

Did you send a CPR request when you got the claim form?

I'm at work now but promise to post in detail this late this evening about your WS.

[FTMDave]

A CPR request is mentioned on every single private parking claim form thread.

 

It's a request to the fleecers for documentation connected to their Particulars of Claim.

 

They generally never respond so we use the lack of response to embarrass them in the WS, especially about planning permission and their contract with the landowner.

 

More later.

Edited December 5, 2022 by FTMDave
Typo

[FTMDave]

22 minutes ago, commonsensehasdied said:

Can the CPR request be issued via MCOL - or do I need to send a hard copy to the claimant?

Asking as I'm conscious of needing to submit my WS by Wednesday at 1600hrs latest. 

After the loss of 16 days including two weekends I don't think you've got a hope in hell of getting a decent WS submitted by 4pm on Wednesday.

 

That's why I suggested 4pm on Thursday to take advantage of the time freed up by a Bank Holiday at this end.  You should be alright as (a) the courts give leeway to Litigants in Person and (b) the fleecers are likely to be late too.

 

But it's your call and you'd better decide straight away.

[FTMDave]

2 minutes ago, commonsensehasdied said:

Right now, I just need spoon-feeding and held by the hand, literally.

Thanks

Onto it in a few minutes, I've just knocked off work.

[FTMDave]

OK, have a look at the attachment in post 110 here  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421775-vcs-spycar-pcn-paploc-now-claimform-no-stopping-east-midlands-airport/page/5/#comments

 

If it's not in post 110 it'll be a couple of posts above or below, sometimes the post count goes wonky.

 

This is a superb WS, the layout of which can be your base.  By that I do not, absolutely do not mean you should use the same legal arguments, as the case is very different from yours.  I mean the layout.  Look at how Alaska101 sets out the introduction and the conclusion.  And how the clear headings show the judge instantly which legal arguments are being used.  

 

More in a mo ...

[FTMDave]

Your sections need to be -

 

1.  Sequence of Events - explain briefly how you got the ticket and how you tried to reason with the Claimant.

 

2.  No locus standi - the Claimant is not the landowner and you do not believe they have the authority from the landowner to bring claims in their own name.  You requested to see their contract with the landowner via CPR request but they refused to answer.

 

3.  Illegal signage - you believe they do not have planning permission for their signs which is a criminal offence.  No contract can be made where criminality is involved.  You requested to see proof of planning permission via CPR request but they refused to answer.  You have checked with the planning portal of the ????? council and have found no indication of planning permission being granted.

 

4.  De minimis.  You paid.  The Claimant suffered no loss.  You have proof.  You have bent over backwards to communicate such proof to the Claimant.  You believe the proof of payment was displayed but even if it had fluttered off the windscreen it would still have been clearly visible in the vehicle and the fact it might not have been exactly on the windscreens is "de minimis".

 

5.  Double Recovery.  Here you can nick almost all of Alaska101's section as the fleecers always make up extra sums and in this regard at least Alaska101's case is identical to yours.

 

You can finish with Alaska 101's Statement of Truth on page 8 of their WS.  Head it "Statement of Truth", Alaska 101 forgot to do so.

 

Don't worry about not using legalese.  The court wants your own words, not legalese.  if you can knock something up for this time tomorrow then there are a number of Night Owls, like me, who are on CAG this time of night and we can tweak further while aiming for the Thursday 4pm deadline.

 

Comments will follow from me and others regarding details in the various sections.

[FTMDave]

Regarding (2) and (3) your argument is weakened by not giving them a chance to respond to the CPR request.  Your call.  Either cut out anything to do with CPR, or include the CPR mentions and hope the court doesn't pick up on the letter being sent too late.  Tough one.  Your call.

 

Regarding (3), if you haven't already done so get on to the planning permission portal of the appropriate council tomorrow.  You don't have to spend hours.  if you can't find PP in 10 minutes that'll be 'cos it isn't there.

 

Regarding (4), which is your ace, include what is stated in the first paragraph of 6.2 of the government's Code of Practice  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice#payment-of-a-parking-tariff  which was set up following the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019.  Point out that although the Code is being legally challenged on (a) the amount of allowed parking charges and (b) the addition of debt collection charges, it is not being challenged on this point.

 

 

 

 

[FTMDave]

A couple of final things to close the evening.

 

When you have knocked up a draft WS, given time is of the essence, please post it direct to thread like in post 81 (more or less, might be a few posts above or below) at  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/446738-hx-parkinggladstones-ccj-exceeded-1hrs-free-mcdonalds-alma-leisure-park-chesterfield-ccj-issued-thanks-to-useless-parking-fines-ltd-claim-dismissed/page/4/#comments

 

That way the regulars can tweak directly, without faffing around with attachments.

 

Also, in the ILLEGAL SIGNAGE section of that WS there is mention of the laws the PPCs break if they don't get PP, which you can use.

[FTMDave]

You don't mess around when you jump into gear, do you?  Great work.

 

Bits of tweaking can be done today by the regulars when we have time.

 

I take it no WS has turned up from the fleecers this morning?  If so good news re the timing.  There is no reason to rush to send yours if theirs hasn't arrived.

[FTMDave]

That really is superb work.

 

I've cut out the addresses at the start which aren't necessary.  I've also cut out your (15) and (17) which aren't applicable to your case.

 

Of course I've knackered the numbering but that can be dealt with later.

 

I see you've decided not to mention CPR.

 

I've put my tweaks in red so you can easily see them.

 

In (6) and (7) you refer to "multiple" attempts.  You do the same in (11).  It might be an idea to actually count the number of attempts you made to make the charlatans see sense and actually include that number in (11) rather than say "multiple" again, just to show how ludicrous the whole thing is and how you have bent over backwards to be reasonable.  

 

Good spot of the windscreen/dashboard conflicting instructions.

 

I've put in a provisional paragraph at the end attacking the fleecers for delivering their WS late, obviously that will have to go in the bin if their WS ever turns up.

 

Work calls now.  See what the other regulars have to say during the day.

Edited December 6, 2022 by FTMDave
Right balls-up by me

[FTMDave]

The more I think about it, the more I think you should wait till early afternoon on Thursday.  The reasons are:

 

1.  In the seven years I've been on this site, I've never seen a judge punish a Litigant-in-Person for being only 24 hours late.

 

2.  If you wait, the fleecers' WS may turn up and you'll have the chance to demolish it.

 

3.  If it doesn't turn up, then you can point out to the court how the fleecers are defying court orders and request their evidence not be allowed.  Win win.

[FTMDave]

In (4.6) it's "in plain sight" not "in plain site".

 

Love the way you've calculated every attempt to talk sense into the thickos!

 

After your current (18) I would add another para just to sum up the section, as after all "De Minimis" is your ace.  Apologies for this knackering of the numbering - again!

 

19.  To sum up, it is contended that a valid ticket was always displayed.  Instead, had it fluttered down from the dashboard, it would have been clearly visible and such a breach would be "de minimis"".

 

The title of the section should be "De Minimis" not "De Minimus".

 

In (18) "taken place" not "took place".

 

The "Statement of Truth" shouldn't be numbered, not that it greatly matters.

 

You need to give each of your exhibits numbers, and when you refer to them in the WS refer to "exhibit 1", "exhibit 2", etc.

Edited December 7, 2022 by FTMDave
Typo

[FTMDave]

To answer your questions.

 

1.  You sign at the bottom after the Statement of Truth.

 

2.  Yes, it does.  It could then be any vehicle.  You need to show what happened on the day.

 

3.  You could, but I don't think it really matters.  Writing a lot to them doesn't make you in the right legally.  But mentioning how many times you've contacted them shows how willing you were to settle matters and shows them up as just pig-headed money-grabbers.

 

To avoid having to read through the whole thread, what's your e-mail situation with the fleecers?  I know most of the original contact was by e-mail.  Have you since told them to stop using e-mail to contact you?

[FTMDave]

We take it no WS again from the fleecers today?