Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Swanseaparker
    • By Swanseaparker 18th Jun 17, 10:27 AM
    • 11Posts
    • 7Thanks
    Swanseaparker
    County Court Claim Form Received
    • #1
    • 18th Jun 17, 10:27 AM
    County Court Claim Form Received 18th Jun 17 at 10:27 AM
    Hi all,

    Having read through the newbies thread I'm following the advice of starting my own thread. Before I proceed with writing my defence, I wanted some advice please. It is similar to the case Loadsofchildren123 posted here (sorry as i'm a new user I'm unable to post the html link):

    forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5638268&highlight=admiral

    The PPC in question is Excel and have instructed BW Legal to act on their behalf. The PCN was issued in January 2012 (pre-POFA) and from what I recall, it was a similar issue where a permit had fallen off the windscreen after who ever was driving left the vehicle. This was not the only time this happened but was surprised to get a PCN for this. The advice I read at the time was to ignore all correspondence from Excel and whichever debt collector (Roxburgh, Graham White etc.) so again was surprised to find myself now receiving a county claim form 5.5 years after the incident. The total amount on the claim form is £268.34, broken down as:

    Principle debt - £100
    8% interest per annum - £39.34
    Contractual costs - £54

    Court fees - £25
    Legal rep costs - £50

    Essentially the advice I'm looking for is how I should approach this and I see 2 options:

    1) It is pre-POFA and I don't believe they have proof of who the driver is (the only catch here is if they have CCTV footage) so prepare my defence using templates using the pre-POFA example from the newbie thread
    2) As with Loadsofchildren123's post above, suggest that my contract was with Admiral and not Excel. I'm slightly concerned about this approach as if it did end up going as far as court, would I have to get Admiral involved at the cost suggested in the thread (£255). My other concern is, as they've issues the claim form, am I too late to be pursuing the course in the thread as this will definitely extend over the 33 day period given to submit a defence?

    I'm aware I need to request all documentation/photographs from BW Legal, citing CPR 31.14 and plan to do this once I have advice on which approach to take. The list above isn't extensive and if anyone has any other suggestions on ways to approach this I would greatly appreciate it. Also, if you require any more information from me, please ask. I didn't think to take any photos at the time given the general consensus within Admiral to "ignore them and they will go away". I almost made it to the 6 year mark too!

    Thanks in advance,
    SP
    Last edited by Swanseaparker; 18-06-2017 at 2:25 PM.
Page 2
    • Swanseaparker
    • By Swanseaparker 28th Jun 17, 6:09 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Swanseaparker
    Initial Defence
    Thank you very much Loadsofchildren123, I've adapted specific to my case, here is the updated version (appreciate the formatting might have changed whilst pasting, but I've read the newbie thread so understand it should be numbered, double line-spaced in Times New Roman font 12 etc.):

    IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE CLAIM NO:



    B E T W E E N:-



    EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LTD
    Claimantand

    xxxxx
    Defendant_______________________________


    DEFENCE
    _______________________________

    1. The Defendant admits that he was the driver of a xxxxx, registration number xxxx on the relevant date.

    2. The Defendant denies that he is liable for the entirety of the Claim for the reasons set out below.

    3. No contract was entered into between the Claimant and the Defendant.

    4. The Defendant did enter into a contract for parking, but it was with his employer and not the Claimant, as follows:

    4.1 On xxxx the Defendant entered into an agreement with his employer Admiral Plc (“Admiral”) by which Admiral granted him the right to park in its staff car park in return for a payment of £50 per calendar month (“the Agreement");
    4.2 The terms of the Agreement were set out in a written document which the Defendant signed on the same date (“the Contract”)
    4.3 The Contract recorded and contained all of the terms of the Agreement. Inter alia, it contained “conditions of parking” which referred to a “car-parking card” which would be given to the Defendant. No terms other than those set out in the Contract formed part of the Agreement between the Defendant and Admiral

    5. The Defendant believes that at the relevant time the Claimant may have been a party to a contract with Admiral by which the Claimant agreed to provide car parking spaces for Admiral’s staff and to manage the use of those spaces in order to prevent unauthorized parking and by which Admiral agreed to pay the Claimant. However, the Defendant does not know whether it was the Claimant or another company which was a party to that contract, nor does he know the terms of that contract and the rights granted to the Claimant by it. The Defendant puts the Claimant to full proof of the contract and its terms.

    6. The Defendant did not enter into any contract with the Claimant in relation to the exercise of his rights to park under the Agreement and the Contract, or in relation to any other matter, and the Claimant therefore has no cause of action against the Defendant.

    7. The Defendant cannot have entered into any contract with the Claimant, because the Claimant cannot have made any offer of parking to him – he already had the right to park by virtue of the Agreement and Contract with Admiral. To the extent that any offer was made by the Claimant, the Defendant did not accept it. Furthermore, no consideration flowed between the Claimant and Defendant (the Defendant already having the parking rights, for which he had agreed to, and did, pay Admiral).

    8. The Defendant admits that he was given a piece of paper containing the Claimant’s “terms and conditions” for the use of Admiral’s staff car park, along with a permit (the “car-parking card” referred to in the Contract) and a permit disc holder. This was given to him by a member of Admiral's Facilities Department after he had entered into the Agreement with Admiral and signed the Contract. When he was given the Claimant’s terms and conditions, the Defendant had already acquired the right to park in the staff car park, subject only to the terms set out in the Contract. Therefore, the terms and conditions cannot have formed part of that Agreement/Contract. Neither can the Defendant have entered into any further contract with the Claimant because there was no offer made, no acceptance of any offer and no consideration flowed between the Claimant and the Defendant. The terms and conditions did not therefore bind the Defendant.

    9. The Claimant’s terms and conditions required the permit to be displayed in a highly prescribed manner on the windscreen of the car using a “permit disc holder” which was stated as provided with the terms and conditions. The Defendant was provided with this disc holder by Admiral at the same time as the terms and conditions (in other words, after the Agreement had been entered into and the Contract signed). It is admitted that the Defendant used the permit disc holder, but he did so purely because it was a convenient method of displaying his permit and keeping it safe, and not because of any obligation to do so.

    10. It is admitted that the car park contained a sign or signs which the Defendant recalls stated that it was to be used only by permit-holders/authorized users and a warning that unauthorized users would be charged. It is denied that such signage made any offer to the Defendant, because its wording forbade parking for those not displaying a permit, rather than offering it, and those who had permits were already authorized by Admiral to park there. In the alternative, the signage did not make an offer which was capable of acceptance because it was cluttered, in small lettering (particularly the reference to the charge) and the terms of any offer were unclear. The Claimant’s intention was not to make a genuine offer, the main purpose of the wording was to deter unauthorized parking by attempting to impose a penalty upon those who did not have a permit.

    11. To the extent that the signage made an offer, the Defendant did not accept it because he was already entitled to park in the car park, and he took the warning in the signage to apply only to unauthorized users – it was clear to him that the sign was intended as a deterrent. The Defendant puts the Claimant to full proof of the signage.

    12. It is denied that the Defendant was obliged by the Agreement or the Contract, nor by any contract with the Claimant, to display the permit in the manner prescribed in the Claimant’s terms and conditions, or its signage, or at all. Nor was the Defendant obliged to pay a charge for failing to display the permit (either to Admiral or to the Claimant or any other entity). At no time did the Defendant accept the Claimant’s terms and conditions or any offer made by the signage and, as stated above, he used the permit disc holder to display the permit only for his own convenience

    13. To the extent that any offer was made by the Claimant, the Defendant did not accept it by parking, and no consideration flowed, because he was already entitled to park in the staff car park.

    14. The Defendant was required by Admiral to provide his car registration number when he signed the Contract, and therefore had a reasonable belief that if there was any issue over the authenticity of his permit, or the manner in which it was displayed, or if there was any other issue relating to his use of the staff car park, Admiral and/or the Claimant would be able to establish that his car belonged to a permit-holder authorized by Admiral to use the staff car park

    15. In the alternative, should it be determined that the Defendant did enter into a contract with the Claimant, the terms of which were set out in the Claimant’s terms and conditions, the Defendant denies that he breached its terms because he displayed the permit at all times and used reasonable endeavors to do so in the manner required by the Claimant’s terms and conditions (namely by using the permit disc holder). It was the Claimant which made it impossible for the Defendant to fully comply with those obligations because the permit disc holder it had supplied was not fit for purpose, therefore frustrating any contract (or this element of it). It must have been an implied term of any such contract that the permit disc holder, which the Defendant was required to use to display his permit, was fit for purpose and that the Defendant could rely on it to remain stuck to the windscreen when he was away from the vehicle. Alternatively, the court has the power to impute such a term to the contract in order to give it efficacy. The Claimant breached this implied term by providing a permit disc holder which came away from the windscreen, with no prior warning, when the car was parked and the Defendant was not in it. On the date in question, the Defendant left his vehicle parked with the permit disc holder affixed to the left hand side of the windscreen (with the permit in it). However, at some time after he had left the vehicle, the permit disc holder fell off the windscreen until he returned to the car at the end of the working day. The Defendant recalls the permit was still visible from outside of the vehicle. It would have been visible to the attendant who issued the parking charge notice.

    16. In the alternative, should it be determined that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant and that he did breach its terms, the Claimant’s terms and conditions failed to define what the amount of any “parking charge” would be, and this term must therefore be void for uncertainty. The terms of the contract have to be clear at the time the contract is made. Terms cannot be added later, other than by way of a collateral or new contract – both contracts require an offer, acceptance and consideration. If a contract was formed, then it was formed when the terms and conditions and the permit were given to the Defendant, and not later when he started to use the car park and read the signs.

    17. Should it be determined that the Claimant’s signage was capable of making an offer, such offer was not accepted by the Defendant, and there can have been no consideration, because he had already been granted parking rights in the staff car park by Admiral (for which he was paying £50 per calendar month) and the Claimant was already obliged to provide car parking spaces pursuant to its contract with Admiral.

    18. Alternatively, should it be determined that the Defendant did enter into a contract with the Defendant, the terms of which were set out in the Claimant’s signage (as opposed to its terms and conditions), the Defendant denies that he breached its terms because he displayed the permit at all times in the front windscreen of his car, as required by the signage. Furthermore, as an onerous contractual term, special attention should have been drawn to the requirement to pay £100, but it was not and, again, it is therefore void (Thornton v Shoe LaneParking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ 2)).

    19. The Defendant believes that the Claimant has already been remunerated for providing and managing the spaces in the Admiral staff car park, and that the £100 charge (to which unspecified charges of £54 have been inexplicably added) is an unrecoverable penalty which is unenforceable and is an unfair term contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Claim is distinguished from the facts in the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis: in that case, it was agreed that there was a contract between the driver and the Claimant, formed by prominent signage at the entrance to a car park which made a clear offer; the case turned on a unique set of facts regarding the location and interest of the landowner; strict compliance with the Claimant’s Code of Practice was paramount; the site was a retail park and there was a free parking licence offered; there was a “legitimate interest” in the contract/parking charges being enforced so that visitors did not overstay the two hour free period in the retail park so as to ensure a turnover of visitors to the retail units; there was a complex contractual arrangement by which the Claimant was not paid by the landowner and therefore had to make an income out of the management of the car parking. All of this together disengaged the “penalty rule”. None of those facts apply in this case - the charges claimed are quite clearly a penalty and are not recoverable. In addition, the Claimant’s compliance with its binding ATA AOS Code of Practice was deemed to be paramount in the Beavis case, whereas in this case the Claimant has breached its Code of Practice in several important respects. Compliance with the Code of Practice is a mandatory term and a condition of membership.

    20. The Defendant puts the Claimant to full proof of all aspects of its claim, including:
    20.1 Its contractual right, granted by the landowner or lawful occupier of the land, to manage the car park where the Defendant was parked on the relevant date, to issue charges to vehicles and to pursue court proceedings in respect of such charges;
    20.2 Its contractual right, granted by the landowner or lawful occupier of the land, to issue charges to vehicles parked by permit-holders (and therefore authorized by the landowner/lawful occupier to park there) and to pursue court proceedings in respect of such charges
    20.3 The creation of a contract with the Defendant by either the terms and conditions or by the Claimant’s signage or by any other means, and the terms of such contract;
    20.4 The manner in which the Defendant has breached such contract;
    20.5 The loss suffered by the Claimant as a result of any breach(es);
    20.6 The signage displayed in the car park, including the size of any signage, its location and height and any entrance signage;
    20.7 His alleged failure to display his permit – the Defendant requires all photographs taken by the Claimant’s operative (some of which he believes were taken from such an angle as to deliberately obscure the visible Permit);
    20.8 The unfit for purpose permit disc holder – the Defendant puts the Claimant to proof of how many of its charges have been defended or appealed by other drivers who were authorized users of the car park but whose permit disc holder had likewise fallen from the car windscreen.

    21. The Defendant also challenges the addition of £54 in “contractual costs” and the interest of £39.34. The Claimant is put to full proof of the contractual term entitling it to add charges of £54 to the sum claimed. In respect of the interest claimed, the court should not exercise its discretion to award interest where the Claimant has delayed by more than 5 years in bringing these proceedings.

    Data Protection Act breach and Trespass

    22. For the reasons set out above, the parking charge which is the subject of these proceedings is invalid. The Claimant therefore had no right to request the keeper’s details from the DVLA and to use, process and retain them, and has breached the Defendant’s rights under the Data Protection Act by doing so. Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) is authority that misuse of personal data is a tort. Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199 is authority that a reasonable sum of compensation would be £750.

    23. The Claimant had no authority to place a parking charge notice on the Defendant’s vehicle and in doing so committed a trespass.

    23. The Defendant specifically reserves his rights in respect of these matters

    DATED THIS TH DAY OF 2017

    Statement of Truth

    I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true

    Signed …………………………………….

    Dated .......................
    • Swanseaparker
    • By Swanseaparker 28th Jun 17, 6:12 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Swanseaparker
    A few points on what I changed from your draft and some further questions please:

    I removed reference to VCS as my vague memory recalls blue and yellow signs at the time, not the newer red ones which are seen in the area now.
    Removed reference to the £100 charge on the signs, I honestly couldn’t tell you if there was an amount there as being a permit holder, this sign didn’t apply to me. Should I put these back in as the PCN was for £100, suggesting the signs would confirm the same?
    Para 11 “The Defendant puts the Claimant to full proof of the signage.”, do I still require this as I’ve removed the VCS reference here?
    Para 15 “The Defendant recalls the permit was still visible from outside of the vehicle”, I can’t remember where the permit fell, if it was on the dashboard, seat, footwell, should I leave this line out? As they haven’t provided proof/photographs it’s difficult to know what they can provide showing a lack of permit and being over 5 years ago I can’t remember. If so, I’m assuming I also need to remove the bit in parenthesis in para 20.7
    Do I need a section in there referring to BW Legal’s blatant attempt to frustrate the claim, by responding to my request for documentation/evidence supporting the claim, saying the “request for documents should not have an affect on you filing your defence”? In line with the lack of POC which Redx stated?

    I notice in the defence post below, reason (8) under reasons why I’m denying raises mentions an inconsistency between BW’s letter and the Claim Form. Mine is the same (BW’s letter states Solicitors’ Costs of £104, but this appears to have been split in the claim form to £50 “Legal representative’s costs” and £54 “contractual costs” (which were bundled in with the “Amount claimed”). Worth me raising?

    forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=44662

    Reason (9) in there seems to cover my last bullet point above, will this suffice for altering later if BW/Excel throw anything else up?

    Finally, right at the bottom of that thread it says to state I am defending myself in this case and to ask for leeway, is this necessary? I'm not sure on the wording I'd use as I don't want to sound like I'm asking for preferential treatment.

    I appreciate there are a lot of questions, again I’m very grateful for your help so far, this defence document is great as I’d already started preparing a “pre-POFA” argument, but agree the contract situation is a better route to take, particularly as my memory is very hazy of that particular day.
    • Swanseaparker
    • By Swanseaparker 28th Jun 17, 6:24 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Swanseaparker
    Finally, to settle my panicking mindset, claim was issued 7th June, I acknowledged on 20th June, I have until 10th July to provide my defence, correct? I will likely post the middle of next week as the 10th July is a Monday and don't want to miss this!
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 29th Jun 17, 10:36 AM
    • 1,053 Posts
    • 1,830 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    I think the point at (8) in that other defence is better in the witness statement. However, no harm putting it in the defence. Put in a new 21 to replace the current one, and I'd use this wording - you'll need to check though what the amounts claimed in your actual LBC were, they may be different from that other case (my wording below assumes they are the same):


    "The Defendant also challenges the addition of £54 in “contractual costs”. The Claimant is put to full proof of the contractual term entitling it to add charges of £54 to the sum claimed. In its Letter Before Claim the Claimant did not in fact seek any such "contractual costs" - it sought the principal debt (£100), court fee (£25) and solicitors costs (£104). Now in the Claim it has reduced the solicitors costs to £50 and is claiming the difference (£54) as "contractual costs". The Claimant is put to full proof as to why this sum was originally claimed as "solicitors costs"."


    Then a new para 22 about interest:


    "The Defendant also challenges the interest claimed of [£39.34] on the basis that the court should not exercise its discretion to award such interest where the Claimant has delayed by more than 5 years in bringing these proceedings."


    Then a new para dealing with the issue raised in para (9) of that other Defence:


    23. "The Defendant asks the court to note that the Claimant has refused to comply with its obligations under the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct, paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c), in that it refused to answer the Defendant's reasonable request made on [date] for further information and core documents by which the Claimant intended to evidence its Claim so that he could properly understand the Claim against him, respond to it and engage in a dialogue with the Claimant about it (the Claimant's response stated that the "request for documents should not have an affect on [the Defendant] filing [his] defence”). The exchange of correspondence is attached to this Defence. The Defendant is left having to defend a Claim which has been poorly and sparsely pleaded, in breach of CPR Rule 16.4, in respect of which no contract has been produced (in breach of Practice Direction 16, paragraph 7.3), all of which means that he does not fully understand the claim that is being brought against him.


    24. In light of the matters at paragraph 23 above, the Defendant asks the court:


    24.1 of its own initiative, to exercise its inherent powers to summarily dispose of issues which do not need full investigation and trial, pursuant to CPR Rule 1.4(2)(c) and Practice Direction 26, paragraph 5.1, namely to strike out the claim under CPR Rule 3.4 or, in the alternative, to summarily adjudge it pursuant to CPR Rule 24;


    24.2 in the alternative, to exercise its powers pursuant to CPR Rule 3.1(f) and pursuant to the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct paragraph 15(b) to stay these proceedings and to order the Claimant to comply with paragraphs 6(a) and 6(b) within 28 days by providing full particulars of its claim and core documents which evidence it (including but not limited to any contract between the Claimant and Admiral for it to manage the parking at the time of the parking event(s), any and all document(s) containing the terms of its alleged contract with the Defendant, evidence of the signage displayed in the car park on the relevant date(s), all photographs taken of the Defendant's car on the relevant dates) (and with provision for the Defendant to then amend his Defence), failing which the claim should be struck out;


    24.3 in the alternative, to exercise its powers pursuant to CPR 3.1(4) to (6) and paragraph 10 of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct when giving case management directions, by ordering the Claimant to file and serve a full Reply to this Defence within 28 days and to provide copies of the documents which it should have produced prior to issuing this claim (set out in 24.2 above) (and with provision for the Defendant to then amend his Defence), failing which the claim should be struck out.


    Should the court decline to make any of the above orders, then the Defendant must reserve his position in amending this Defence to deal with further matters/particulars which the Claimant may include in its evidence in support of the Claim.


    25. In the meantime, without full and proper particulars of the Claim and without any further explanation or documents, the Defendant makes it clear that he puts the Claimant to full proof of every aspect of its claim.






    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 29th Jun 17, 10:44 AM
    • 1,053 Posts
    • 1,830 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    I removed reference to VCS as my vague memory recalls blue and yellow signs at the time, not the newer red ones which are seen in the area now. OK, new para 25 puts them to full proof of everything - the other person I helped said their friend thought that the signs may have been blue and yellow but she couldn't really say so I had tried to cover both bases
    Removed reference to the £100 charge on the signs, I honestly couldn’t tell you if there was an amount there as being a permit holder, this sign didn’t apply to me. Should I put these back in as the PCN was for £100, suggesting the signs would confirm the same?it reads fine as it is - you are putting them to full proof anyway
    Para 11 “The Defendant puts the Claimant to full proof of the signage.”, do I still require this as I’ve removed the VCS reference here? yes, you always do this. Often the PPC makes no effort to show what signs were in place on the actual day, and the judge says they haven't proved their case (eg they should produce photos showing both the car and at least one of the signs)
    Para 15 “The Defendant recalls the permit was still visible from outside of the vehicle”, I can’t remember where the permit fell, if it was on the dashboard, seat, footwell, should I leave this line out? I think take out that sentence. As they haven’t provided proof/photographs it’s difficult to know what they can provide showing a lack of permit and being over 5 years ago I can’t remember. If so, I’m assuming I also need to remove the bit in parenthesis in para 20.7 no, leave this in until you've seen the photos - very often operatives take photos that deliberately hide the fact that the permit could be seen, but if you look at them carefully sometimes you can see the corner of the permit and so can then say that it could have been seen from someone standing close to the vehicle and the photos are deliberately misleading
    Do I need a section in there referring to BW Legal’s blatant attempt to frustrate the claim, by responding to my request for documentation/evidence supporting the claim, saying the “request for documents should not have an affect on you filing your defence”? In line with the lack of POC which Redx stated? Absolutely - didn't realise they'd written this letter to you. It could (should) be dynamite. You'll see I've added a whole section. Can you attach the letters to the defence? When the matter gets sent to your local court and a judge looks at it to assign it to the small track and make directions, (s)he will hopefully make one of these orders. It depends whether or not (s)he actually reads your defence. I think on your DQ (when you get to that stage) where it says is there any order you'd like the court to make, lift this section and repeat it there. Some cases do get struck out at this stage, or at least the C is ordered to properly particularise the claim (split infinitive there, I know!).

    Finally, right at the bottom of that thread it says to state I am defending myself in this case and to ask for leeway, is this necessary? I'm not sure on the wording I'd use as I don't want to sound like I'm asking for preferential treatment. I wouldn't bother, this won't make the judge give you any extra leeway. You get it anyway as a LiP. I don't think it adds anything. Put it in if you want, many people do.
    Originally posted by Swanseaparker

    See my comments in red in the text of your original post
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 29th Jun 17, 11:31 AM
    • 1,053 Posts
    • 1,830 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Sorry, another point for your DQ (if it gets this far):


    in the part where it says do you want any particular directions, you put the directions/orders in para 24 above, PLUS in the part where it says "should the court decline to make these orders..." and you reserve your position re adding further defence points, I'd add a specific request that the court orders SEQUENTIAL service (rather than exchange) of witness statements because, as things stand, you have no real idea of how the claimant will make out its case and this will at least allow you to respond to their case properly, rather than shooting in the dark. I know we are a little way off that, and hopefully Admiral will buy you/themselves out of this, but just saying it while I remember.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 29th Jun 17, 4:11 PM
    • 49,944 Posts
    • 63,345 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Sorry, another point for your DQ (if it gets this far):


    in the part where it says do you want any particular directions, you put the directions/orders in para 24 above, PLUS in the part where it says "should the court decline to make these orders..." and you reserve your position re adding further defence points, I'd add a specific request that the court orders SEQUENTIAL service (rather than exchange) of witness statements because, as things stand, you have no real idea of how the claimant will make out its case and this will at least allow you to respond to their case properly, rather than shooting in the dark. I know we are a little way off that, and hopefully Admiral will buy you/themselves out of this, but just saying it while I remember.
    Originally posted by Loadsofchildren123

    That's a good one LOC123, not seen that suggested before. Makes sense.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 30th Jun 17, 9:29 AM
    • 1,053 Posts
    • 1,830 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Yes I've been meaning to raise that for ages. It makes sense to me that where you have no idea how they make out their case, and knowing that they will only do so in their WS, they should be sequential.


    Can you get this put into the procedural threads CM?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 1st Jul 17, 12:15 AM
    • 49,944 Posts
    • 63,345 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes I will add it to the sticky, over the weekend. Any tips or changes for the NEWBIES thread gratefully received, or case law, anything useful you think should be in the standard info.

    Shout to remind me if I forget, I do block pm's here and on pepipoo, to avoid harassment, but you can email me, as we are in touch in another place.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 01-07-2017 at 12:18 AM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 4th Jul 17, 10:13 AM
    • 1,053 Posts
    • 1,830 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    I wonder also whether in that particular section of the DQ people ought to be asking as standard for an order - I know that these points are always put in a defence, but perhaps putting them as a specific requested direction in the DQ makes it more likely the judge will consider this point:


    either:
    1. an order that the claim be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4 due to the incoherent Particulars which make out no case (which the court has the power to do under its inherent case management powers contained in CPR Rule 1.4(2)(c) and Practice Direction 26, paragraph 5.1),
    or
    2. an order that the C be ordered to file and serve within 28 days proper particulars of the claim (in accordance with CPR Rule 16.4), and the core documents making out the claim (in accordance with the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct paragraphs 6(a) and (c) (and list these - eg landowner contract, any contract it claims exists between it and D, copies of all photographs in its possession showing the vehicle it is alleged was parked), and until then the claim be stayed pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Pre-Action Practice Direction; thereafter if the C has not filed and served such particulars and documents then the claim be automatically struck out, or if the C has filed and served such particulars and documents, then the D be given leave to file an amended defence 28 days thereafter.


    If the court is not minded to make either order, then an order that the C produce those documents within x days pursuant to Rule 27.2(3) and that the D be given leave to file an amended Defence x days thereafter.


    The option at 1 puts everything at its highest and asks the court to throw the case out. Most DJs won't be brave enough to do that, so 2. is a half way house. 3. is only where the judge won't do either, but at least it makes the PPC do a bit of work up front, instead of sitting back and making the D flail around trying to defend a case from every angle.


    I think it's better to present the judge with alternative options - they are more likely to make an order if it's suggested to them, along with their powers to do so.


    I know some forum regulars prefer not to force the PPC to set out its case properly, but I think that's dangerous and I think it's far better (particularly where they have no/a weak case) to try to force their hand.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 4th Jul 17, 10:15 AM
    • 1,053 Posts
    • 1,830 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Apologies, I'm aware that I'm hijacking this thread a bit, I'll email C-M with any more suggestions rather than making them on here.
    • Swanseaparker
    • By Swanseaparker 10th Jul 17, 12:00 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Swanseaparker
    Hi all,

    Just a quick update on this thread. I emailed my defence last week and the court have filed this. Received a letter today from BW Legal with a notice of discontinuation attached. Called the court to confirm and they said they haven't received/processed it yet but are in arrears (thanks to these idiots). Will call later in the week to definitely confirm, I'm assuming it's legitimate because otherwise it's extra ammo in my case...however you never know with these cowboys.

    Wanted to say a massive thank you for your help on this. I certainly wouldn't have thought to write to Admiral threatening to involve and Excel telling them they're after the wrong party.

    To answer a few questions I realised I missed earlier:
    - I'm no longer an employee (left in 2014)
    - At the time I worked there, we had no union reps and as other posters have suggested, the Facilities team encouraged people to pay the PCNs and would not get involved in any disputes
    - As for it being family run, is this just a term used for the fact it still being run by the founders? To confirm, the ex-CEO Henry Engelhardt stepped down last year and the COO David Stevens replaced him. Both are/were based in the Cardiff offices

    I'll keep you posted on the progress but I think there's light at the end of the tunnel!
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 10th Jul 17, 1:00 PM
    • 1,053 Posts
    • 1,830 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    It was me that said about them being family run, that's what I was told by father of the young lady I helped (also ex-employee). Since writing those letters and having success two more of you on the forum have used them and had success. You'll probably get a letter from Admiral now saying they've paid off Excel on your behalf but don't accept liability blahblah.


    Admiral shouldn't be paying off Excel, they should be telling Excel in no uncertain terms to back off - but the trouble is Excel has them by the balls because it leases the car park from the council (I am assuming it's council owned land) and is then renting it on to Admiral, and technically they could end the agreement with Admiral and rent the carpark to another business - so Admiral obviously don't want to lose the carpark. But they really should be having a conversation with Excel about putting into place a system to stop the targeting of permit holders.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 18th Jul 17, 10:30 AM
    • 1,053 Posts
    • 1,830 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Any news Swanseaparker?
    • Swanseaparker
    • By Swanseaparker 1st Aug 17, 10:45 AM
    • 11 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Swanseaparker
    Sorry for the delayed response, took a while to come through but yes, settled as you suggested!

    Thanks again for all your help, you've saved me a lot of time, stress and potentially money.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

626Posts Today

5,929Users online

Martin's Twitter