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
    • badayuni7863
    • By badayuni7863 7th Sep 17, 6:24 PM
    • 4Posts
    • 0Thanks
    badayuni7863
    Minister Baywatch CCJ I think
    • #1
    • 7th Sep 17, 6:24 PM
    Minister Baywatch CCJ I think 7th Sep 17 at 6:24 PM
    Hi guys

    I am new to this forum go easy on me if I am not in the right place please

    Basically I apparently parked on some land owned by minister Baywatch I don't remember doing so. I received a fine a while back and a picture of my car apparently parked. I could have been just turning around though.

    I ignored all there letters. No appeal nothing just ignored them. Today I have received a claim form from Northampton county court business services. I believe this is a ccj type thing

    They want over 200 please can you advise on the best way to go about this please. How to deal with it I can not afford to pay the full amount

    Do I have to complete this form? Can I speak to the solicitor that is on the form?

    Your help would be greatly appreciated
Page 1
    • waamo
    • By waamo 7th Sep 17, 6:31 PM
    • 2,089 Posts
    • 2,495 Thanks
    waamo
    • #2
    • 7th Sep 17, 6:31 PM
    • #2
    • 7th Sep 17, 6:31 PM
    Read the thread at the top of the forum. Its the thread that tells Newbies to read it first, it has a section on dealing with court claims.
    This space for hire.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 7th Sep 17, 6:36 PM
    • 16,483 Posts
    • 20,637 Thanks
    Redx
    • #3
    • 7th Sep 17, 6:36 PM
    • #3
    • 7th Sep 17, 6:36 PM
    dont complete anything yet

    and dont phone anyone up either

    read and follow the advice in post #2 of that newbies sticky thread , especially read the BARGEPOLE posts and acknowledge online , but do not put anything in the defence box, simply acknowledge it , nothing else

    then you have 28 days to draft your defence, by following that post #2

    there will be no CCJ as long as you pay IN FULL within 28 days if you lose in court

    if you win you pay nothing and claim costs back, up to say £95

    your ability to pay (or not) is irrelevant in a court case
    Last edited by Redx; 07-09-2017 at 8:18 PM.
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 7th Sep 17, 6:54 PM
    • 7,374 Posts
    • 6,421 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #4
    • 7th Sep 17, 6:54 PM
    • #4
    • 7th Sep 17, 6:54 PM
    If you cannot afford to pay it you will have to fight it. This means lots of work, hours of reading, you will need to grasp some difficult concepts, so no more ignoring - anything, there is no easy way to now make this go away..

    Nearly all of these cases can be won, they use low rent lawyers, and take people to court on an industrial scale.

    Read some of these to get the background

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Sep 17, 7:01 PM
    • 51,440 Posts
    • 65,043 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 7th Sep 17, 7:01 PM
    • #5
    • 7th Sep 17, 7:01 PM
    Today I have received a claim form from Northampton county court business services. I believe this is a ccj type thing
    No, it's a court claim. We help people defend - not pay!

    Please read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread first, and do the AOS on MCOL (explained there).
    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.

    • badayuni7863
    • By badayuni7863 7th Sep 17, 7:23 PM
    • 4 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    badayuni7863
    • #6
    • 7th Sep 17, 7:23 PM
    • #6
    • 7th Sep 17, 7:23 PM
    Thank for your help I am not great at using forums

    I don't understand which part of the newbie thread I have to follow.

    I would be so grateful if you could give me an idiot step by step guide of what I need to do with the form.

    Or give me a link of where I can find this

    Thanks so much
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Sep 17, 7:26 PM
    • 51,440 Posts
    • 65,043 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 7th Sep 17, 7:26 PM
    • #7
    • 7th Sep 17, 7:26 PM
    Look at your post you just made, it's #6 on the thread here, and this reply is #7.

    So, I told you to read:

    post #2 of the NEWBIES thread
    Guess what?

    It includes a step-by-step, pictorial idiot's guide to the AOS online (do not fill out the paper form).
    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.

    • badayuni7863
    • By badayuni7863 7th Sep 17, 8:17 PM
    • 4 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    badayuni7863
    • #8
    • 7th Sep 17, 8:17 PM
    • #8
    • 7th Sep 17, 8:17 PM
    Thanks I've got that bit much appreciated. Once I complete that can you tell me which I need for my defence please
    • Redx
    • By Redx 7th Sep 17, 8:20 PM
    • 16,483 Posts
    • 20,637 Thanks
    Redx
    • #9
    • 7th Sep 17, 8:20 PM
    • #9
    • 7th Sep 17, 8:20 PM
    once the AOS has been done you need to construct your own defence based on the examples in that post #2

    you cannot just copy and paste one , but you can do so and then adapt it for your own case

    this is not as simple as just copying something and submitting it, there is a lot to learn and do, and YOU need to do it

    people on here will help you , advise you and assist you once you have done the legwork and are reporting back etc

    post your draft defence on here for critique , if you have done the online AOS then you have 28 days to get this defence done , so read maybe 10 other court case threads to see what they did and find a suitable ont to follow and adapt for your own court case
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • badayuni7863
    • By badayuni7863 14th Sep 17, 7:14 PM
    • 4 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    badayuni7863
    Hi guys I would be so grateful of you could have a skim of this please for me and let me know your thoughts

    The basis of my defence is:

    * Claimant does not own the land they have not supplied authorisation that they can pursue outstanding charges per BPA 7.1 AOS
    * Do not meet Practice Direction 16 7.5 it is not clear how the terms were breached
    * No proof the defendant was the driver, they have not followed required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from driver to keeper
    * I wrote to claimant requesting details about the claim, no response received
    * Poor signage

    I would be so grateful if you could read through the below and let me know your thoughts

    Also once all okay i need to post to per the instructions on your other thread. Is that correct?

    In the County Court
    Claim Number: *******
    Between
    ******* v *******
    DEFENCE STATEMENT

    Preliminary
    1. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice 7.1 which says;
    “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that either you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary or that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges and, with their permission, through the courts if necessary”

    2. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is ‘roboclaims’ and as such is against the public interest. Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point;

    “ 1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
    1. those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’,
    2. those which are incoherent and make no sense,
    3. those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant ”

    3. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence;
    3.1. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
    3.2. The Claimant has stated that a ‘parking charge’ was incurred.
    3.3. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
    3.4. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.
    There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was, nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information.
    The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.

    3.4.1 On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking
    charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.’

    3.4.2. On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.

    Background
    4. It is admitted that at the time of the alleged infringement the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark **** which is the subject of these proceedings.

    5. It is not admitted that on 26/05/17 the Defendant's vehicle was parked at ******
    5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence, photographic or otherwise that the vehicle is indeed parked and not waiting / giving way to pedestrians or vehicles.

    6. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
    6.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
    6.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
    6.2.1. There was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
    6.2.2. That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
    It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

    6.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

    7. The defendant wrote to the claimant on 30th June asking for:
    a) Full particulars of the parking charges
    b) Who the party was that contracted with ******
    c) The full legal identity of the landowner
    d) A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that ****** had their authority.
    e) If the charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide justification of this sum.
    The claimant has not responded with any of the above information.
    As Gladstones are a firm of solicitors who’s Directors also run the IPC Trade Body and deal with private parking issues every single day of the week there can be no excuse for these omissions.

    The Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and asks leave to amend the Defence.

    8. ****** are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.
    8.1. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
    8.2. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
    8.3 The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge

    9. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the ‘parking charge’ has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated from £100 to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
    9.1. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.
    9.2. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
    9.2.1. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

    Failure to set out clear parking terms
    10. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
    10.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, woefully inadequate.
    10.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording, legibility and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
    10.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the British Parking Association Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory

    11. The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges with no evidence of how these extra charges have been calculated.
    No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.
    11.1. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
    11.2. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
    11.3. Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.!
    11.4. The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal representative’s costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

    Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim
    12. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

    13. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against motorists, alleging 'debts' for parking on free customer parking areas is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

    14. The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors, Gladstones, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centres in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).

    15. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.!

    16. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.

    I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

    Name - Signed - Date
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

76Posts Today

2,851Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • I believe I can boldly go where no twitter poll has gone before https://t.co/HA0jC92gAK

  • OK I'm wilting to public pressure and there will be a star trek captain's poll at some point next week

  • I can get that. My order is 1. Picard 2. Janeway 3. Kirk. Too early to say where Lorca will end up (or would you? https://t.co/kawtCOe9RA

  • Follow Martin