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
    • GT6
    • By GT6 27th Nov 17, 5:59 PM
    • 8Posts
    • 1Thanks
    GT6
    County Court defence help
    • #1
    • 27th Nov 17, 5:59 PM
    County Court defence help 27th Nov 17 at 5:59 PM
    Hi

    First of all apologies in advance if I get the forum etiquette or protocols wrong – I’m new to this.

    In early May the driver parked the keeper’s car in a Working Men’s Club car park, entered the car’s number plate and paid 80p for an hour. The driver came back late and then the keeper got a parking charge through the post from ParkingEye saying the keeper owed them (can’t remember how much) because the driver had stayed for 1 hour 20 minutes. The letter had two timestamped photos of the front and rear of the car taken as the car entered and exited the car park. The letter was thrown in the bin. Nothing more happened until out of the blue the keeper got a County Court Business Centre Claim Form three weeks ago.

    The keeper registered with MCOL and put in the AOS. The claim issue date was 31st October so calculate that the defence has to be done by Sunday (3/12). I have spent the last couple of weeks off and on trying to work out a defence but am going round in circles. I’ve also just seen the advice to post the defence so presumably I now only have three days to get something together.

    Parking Charge Details (from the ParkingEye online portal)

    Parking Charge Reference: 098765/123456
    Vehicle Registration Number: AB06XYZ
    Contravention Date/Time: 07/05/2017 15:05:09
    Contravention Location: The xxxxxx Working Mens Club Pay & Display, yyyyy Road, xxxxxx, ZZ1 1AA
    Stay Duration: 1 hours 20 minutes
    Allowed Duration: 0 hours 0 minutes
    Paid Duration: 1 hours 0 minutes (£0.80)
    Outstanding Balance: £175.00

    Particulars of Claim

    “Claim for monies outstanding from the defendant, as registered keeper, in relation to a Parking Charge, issued 11/05/2017, for parking on private land in breach of the terms and conditions (the contract). ParhingEye’s ANPR system, monitoring The xxxxxx Working Mens Club Pay & Display, yyyyy Road, xxxxxx, ZZ1 1AA, captured vehicle AB06 XYZ entering and leaving the car park, parking without a valid ticket. The signage, clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park, states that this is private land, is managed by ParkingEye Ltd, and is a paid parking site, along with other T+C’s by which those who park on site agree to be bound. In accordance with the T+C’s set out in the signage, the Parking Charge became payable. Notice under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 has been given under Sch 4, making the keeper liable. This claim is in reference to Parking Charge(s) 098765/123456.
    Signed Rosanna Breaks (Claimant’s Legal Representative)”

    They are claiming £100 plus £25 court fee plus £50 costs.

    My thoughts on the defence.
    • The car park is also used as the entrance to some private garages plus the club’s own private car park. How do they know the driver wasn’t parked for an hour and then left the car park for one of these?
    • I don’t know how much leeway you’re allowed but I assume it’s less than 20 minutes?
    • No Notice to Keeper issued
    • Has POFA 2012 been complied with?
    • They haven’t identified the driver
    • Their costs are too high
    • Pre action protocol not followed

    I’ve read the Newbies Post #2 but I’m really unclear as to where I stand with this and I must admit to being confused over all the legal arguments I have seen (e.g. forum threads 5591251 and 5729157)

    Sorry to be so rubbish but I think it confirms why I would never make a lawyer!

    Thanks in advance.
    Last edited by GT6; 28-11-2017 at 9:49 AM. Reason: anonymisation
Page 1
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 27th Nov 17, 6:09 PM
    • 4,757 Posts
    • 3,107 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #2
    • 27th Nov 17, 6:09 PM
    • #2
    • 27th Nov 17, 6:09 PM
    If your defence is due on a Sunday, you have until 4pm on the Monday to submit it.

    It can be emailed. Probably the most straightforward way and gives you a little extra time.

    You would be wise to never reveal any clues to the driver's identity.
    To that end, perhaps your second paragraph should start:
    In early May my wife’s car was parked in a Working Men’s Club car park. The driver entered her car’s number plate...
    Please edit your post.
    Last edited by KeithP; 27-11-2017 at 6:15 PM.
    .
    • Redx
    • By Redx 27th Nov 17, 6:42 PM
    • 16,923 Posts
    • 21,045 Thanks
    Redx
    • #3
    • 27th Nov 17, 6:42 PM
    • #3
    • 27th Nov 17, 6:42 PM
    as above

    your defence points allude to POFA2012 and not identifying the driver

    yet post #1 looks like a witness statement on behalf of the claimant

    stay as THE DRIVER and THE KEEPER when on the internet
    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
    • GT6
    • By GT6 27th Nov 17, 6:54 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    GT6
    • #4
    • 27th Nov 17, 6:54 PM
    • #4
    • 27th Nov 17, 6:54 PM
    Thanks KeithP and Redx - I've hopefully made the right edits as you suggest.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 27th Nov 17, 6:57 PM
    • 16,923 Posts
    • 21,045 Thanks
    Redx
    • #5
    • 27th Nov 17, 6:57 PM
    • #5
    • 27th Nov 17, 6:57 PM
    edit post #1 to remove the reference details etc

    and your calculation must be 03/12 , not 03/11
    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
    • GT6
    • By GT6 28th Nov 17, 9:53 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    GT6
    • #6
    • 28th Nov 17, 9:53 AM
    • #6
    • 28th Nov 17, 9:53 AM
    Whoops! Thanks made the change to 3/12.

    The references, car reg, address, etc are all fabricated.
    • GT6
    • By GT6 29th Nov 17, 6:26 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    GT6
    • #7
    • 29th Nov 17, 6:26 PM
    • #7
    • 29th Nov 17, 6:26 PM
    Hi

    Here's my draft defence. A big, big thanks to whoever did the original - thank you for allowing me to make use of it.

    Is ccbc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk the correct address to email the final PDF to?


    IN THE COUNTY COURT
    CLAIM No: CXXXXXX

    BETWEEN:

    PARKINGEYE LTD (Claimant)

    -and-

    Dxxxx Lxxxx (nee Dxxxxxx) (Defendant)

    ________________________________________
    DEFENCE STATEMENT
    ________________________________________

    I, Dxxxx Lxxxx (nee Dxxxxxx) am the defendant in this case, and I intend to deny this claim in its entirety. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all.

    1) a) The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have never been provided. The claimants ‘particulars of claim’ are nothing more than the terms of a private car park, they do not state what, if any, contravention did occur. The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail.

    b) There was no ‘Letter before County Court Claim’ under the Practice Direction. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'particulars', with the signature of ‘Rosanna Breaks’.

    2) This is a pay and display car park with a VRN to be input on a keypad. I put the Claimant to strict proof that there was no payment made because there is no evidence of any contravention whatsoever. Mere ANPR photos of a car arriving and leaving is no proof of whether a tariff was paid or not and the burden remains that of the claimant to prove their case.

    3) The car park gives access to land not covered by the Claimant’s contract. I put the Claimant to strict proof that the vehicle was parked for the whole duration claimed by the Claimant and that the vehicle had not exited the car park to access this land.

    4) The claimant did not issue a valid notice to keeper. The claimant did not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and give the registered keeper opportunity at any point to identify the driver. A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid, must be delivered (where no notice to driver has been served (e.g. ANPR is used)) not later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked.

    No notice to keeper was sent within the 14 days required to comply with POFA 2012 only a speculative invoice which was sent outside of the 14 day period, which did not comply with POFA 2012. This would exclude the registered keeper being liable for any charges. The following are some of the reasons the speculative invoice was not a notice to keeper and did not comply with POFA 2012.

    a) It was not a notice to keeper but a “Parking Charge Notice” as detailed in the title of the invoice.

    b) It did not advise that the driver is liable for the parking charge and that it has not been paid in full.

    c) It did not warn the keeper that if the parking charges remains outstanding after 28 days and the name and address of the driver has not been given, or otherwise known to the person entitled to the parking charge, that “creditor” will be entitled to recover the parking charge from the registered keeper. Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot conceive a new charge when neither the signs mentioned a possible £175 for outstanding debt and damages.

    d) It did not invite the registered keeper to pay the outstanding parking charge or, if she was not the driver, to provide the name and address of the driver and to pass a copy of the notice on to that driver. Given the passage of time, I can neither confirm nor deny the name of the driver on the day. I put the claimant to proof of that identity.

    e) It was a speculative invoice titled “Parking Charge Notice” and not a notice to keeper and was not sent within the 14 day period to comply with POFA 2012 even if it was deemed to comply with POFA 2012 (which it did not).

    I put to the claimant for proof that they contacted the DVLA for details of the registered keeper within 14 days of 11/05/2017. It is DVLA guidelines that they should request this information 7 days prior to the date the notice has to be issued.

    I also put to the claimant strict proof that they complied with POFA 2012 in issuing a valid notice to keeper to pursue a claim to the registered keeper and a copy of any notices or letters.

    5) The Defendant believes that the Claimant have artificially inflated this claim. The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. They are claiming legal costs when not only is this not permitted, but the Defendant believes that they have not incurred legal costs as the Defendant has the reasonable belief that the ‘Rosanna Breaks’ is an employee of the Claimant (she is listed as an employee of the Claimant on the Law Society website) and is remunerated by them and that the particulars of claim dated 31 October 2017 are templates, so it is not credible that £50 legal costs were incurred and hence cannot charge the standard £50 fee. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost. If the claimant alleges that this is the cost of its in-house administration, these cannot be recovered - they are staff performing the task that they have been employed for and essential to the claimant's business plan.

    6) This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this case. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

    7) The Beavis also case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

    In this Claimant's case, they have no cause of action in any case due to their choice not to use POFA Schedule 4 wording, and unlike some other parking firms this means I am not liable in law. The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

    Signed

    Date
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 29th Nov 17, 7:16 PM
    • 4,757 Posts
    • 3,107 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #8
    • 29th Nov 17, 7:16 PM
    • #8
    • 29th Nov 17, 7:16 PM
    Is ccbc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk the correct address to email the final PDF to?
    Originally posted by GT6
    I would suggest ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk is a better address.

    (from: https://courttribunalfinder.service.gov.uk/courts/county-court-business-centre-ccbc)
    .
    • Redx
    • By Redx 29th Nov 17, 7:18 PM
    • 16,923 Posts
    • 21,045 Thanks
    Redx
    • #9
    • 29th Nov 17, 7:18 PM
    • #9
    • 29th Nov 17, 7:18 PM
    and dont forget that it has to be signed and dated at the bottom

    so print , sign and date it , scan back to pdf , attach to email with MCOL ref and name in the header plus your details and MCOL ref in the main email comments too
    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
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 29th Nov 17, 11:23 PM
    • 745 Posts
    • 1,383 Thanks
    Johnersh
    FWIW in-house legal teams still constitute solicitor costs not overhead. However whether charges are reasonable/recoverable is a separate issue.

    If it were me I'd amend 1b and 5. I think the case law you cite is against you on the point of principle.
    • GT6
    • By GT6 1st Dec 17, 9:27 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    GT6
    OK thanks I hadn't realised that employed solicitors' costs were allowable. I'll remove 5 (and 1b as it's not material).
    • GT6
    • By GT6 1st Dec 17, 9:31 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    GT6
    Thanks to everyone for the helpful advice. If there are no other comments, I will finalise the statement and will send it off later by email.

    ________________________________________
    DEFENCE STATEMENT
    ________________________________________

    I, xxxxxxxxxx (nee yyyyyy) am the defendant in this case, and I intend to deny this claim in its entirety. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all.

    1) The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have never been provided. The claimants ‘particulars of claim’ are nothing more than the terms of a private car park, they do not state what, if any, contravention did occur. The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail.

    2) This is a pay and display car park with a VRN to be input on a keypad. I put the Claimant to strict proof that there was no payment made because there is no evidence of any contravention whatsoever. Mere ANPR photos of a car arriving and leaving is no proof of whether a tariff was paid or not and the burden remains that of the claimant to prove their case.

    3) The car park gives access to land not covered by the Claimant’s contract. I put the Claimant to strict proof that the vehicle was parked for the whole duration claimed by the Claimant and that the vehicle had not exited the car park to access this land.

    4) The claimant did not issue a valid notice to keeper. The claimant did not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and give the registered keeper opportunity at any point to identify the driver. A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid, must be delivered (where no notice to driver has been served (e.g. ANPR is used)) not later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked.

    No notice to keeper was sent within the 14 days required to comply with POFA 2012 only a speculative invoice which was sent outside of the 14 day period, which did not comply with POFA 2012. This would exclude the registered keeper being liable for any charges. The following are some of the reasons the speculative invoice was not a notice to keeper and did not comply with POFA 2012.

    a) It was not a notice to keeper but a “Parking Charge Notice” as detailed in the title of the invoice.

    b) It did not advise that the driver is liable for the parking charge and that it has not been paid in full.

    c) It did not warn the keeper that if the parking charges remains outstanding after 28 days and the name and address of the driver has not been given, or otherwise known to the person entitled to the parking charge, that “creditor” will be entitled to recover the parking charge from the registered keeper. Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot conceive a new charge when neither the signs mentioned a possible £175 for outstanding debt and damages.

    d) It did not invite the registered keeper to pay the outstanding parking charge or, if she was not the driver, to provide the name and address of the driver and to pass a copy of the notice on to that driver. Given the passage of time, I can neither confirm nor deny the name of the driver on the day. I put the claimant to proof of that identity.

    e) It was a speculative invoice titled “Parking Charge Notice” and not a notice to keeper and was not sent within the 14 day period to comply with POFA 2012 even if it was deemed to comply with POFA 2012 (which it did not).

    I put to the claimant for proof that they contacted the DVLA for details of the registered keeper within 14 days of 11/05/2017. It is DVLA guidelines that they should request this information 7 days prior to the date the notice has to be issued.

    I also put to the claimant strict proof that they complied with POFA 2012 in issuing a valid notice to keeper to pursue a claim to the registered keeper and a copy of any notices or letters.

    5) This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this case. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

    6) The Beavis also case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

    In this Claimant's case, they have no cause of action in any case due to their choice not to use POFA Schedule 4 wording, and unlike some other parking firms this means I am not liable in law. The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 1st Dec 17, 11:25 AM
    • 1,166 Posts
    • 1,204 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Theyre allowable, but you challenge them to show it was £50 worth of time
    Parking Eye issue 30000 claims a year. If they work full time thats about 5 minutes per claim.
    • GT6
    • By GT6 1st Dec 17, 1:18 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    GT6
    Thanks to @KeithP, @Redx, @Johnersh and @nosferatu1001 for all your help.

    I've added a para about costs and also signage.

    I'm planning on sending it off soon so here's the final draft.

    ________________________________________
    DEFENCE STATEMENT
    ________________________________________

    I, xxxxxx (nee yyyy) am the defendant in this case, and I intend to deny this claim in its entirety. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all.

    1) The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have never been provided. The claimants ‘particulars of claim’ are nothing more than the terms of a private car park, they do not state what, if any, contravention did occur. The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail.

    2) This is a pay and display car park with a VRN to be input on a keypad. I put the Claimant to strict proof that there was no payment made because there is no evidence of any contravention whatsoever. Mere ANPR photos of a car arriving and leaving is no proof of whether a tariff was paid or not and the burden remains that of the claimant to prove their case.

    3) The car park gives access to land not covered by the Claimant’s contract. I put the Claimant to strict proof that the vehicle was parked for the whole duration claimed by the Claimant and that the vehicle had not exited the car park to access this land.

    4) The claimant did not issue a valid notice to keeper. The claimant did not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) Sch 4 para 8 and 9. The claimant did not give the registered keeper opportunity at any point to identify the driver. A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the POFA requires that the Notice, to be valid, must be delivered (where no notice to driver has been served (e.g. ANPR is used)) not later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked.

    No notice to keeper was sent within the 14 days required to comply with POFA only a speculative invoice which was sent outside of the 14 day period, which did not comply with POFA. This would exclude the registered keeper being liable for any charges. The following are some of the reasons the speculative invoice was not a notice to keeper and did not comply with POFA.

    a) It was not a notice to keeper but a “Parking Charge Notice” as detailed in the title of the invoice.

    b) It did not advise that the driver is liable for the parking charge and that it has not been paid in full.

    c) It did not warn the keeper that if the parking charges remains outstanding after 28 days and the name and address of the driver has not been given, or otherwise known to the person entitled to the parking charge, that “creditor” will be entitled to recover the parking charge from the registered keeper. Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot conceive a new charge when neither the signs mentioned a possible £175 for outstanding debt and damages.

    d) It did not invite the registered keeper to pay the outstanding parking charge or, if she was not the driver, to provide the name and address of the driver and to pass a copy of the notice on to that driver. Given the passage of time, I can neither confirm nor deny the name of the driver on the day. I put the claimant to proof of that identity.

    e) It was a speculative invoice titled “Parking Charge Notice” and not a notice to keeper and was not sent within the 14 day period to comply with POFA even if it was deemed to comply with POFA (which it did not).

    I put to the claimant for proof that they contacted the DVLA for details of the registered keeper within 14 days of 11/05/2017. It is DVLA guidelines that they should request this information 7 days prior to the date the notice has to be issued.

    I also put to the claimant strict proof that they complied with POFA in issuing a valid notice to keeper to pursue a claim to the registered keeper and a copy of any notices or letters.

    5) The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. The Defendant believes that they have not incurred such legal costs as the Defendant has the reasonable belief that the ‘Rosanna Breaks’ is an employee of the Claimant (she is listed as an employee of the Claimant on the Law Society website) and is remunerated by them and that the particulars of claim are templates issued frequently. It is therefore not credible that £50 costs were incurred.

    6) This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the British Parking Association (“BPA”) Code of Practice (“CoP”) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this case. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

    7) In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

    The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.
    In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.
    Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
    It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver.
    No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
    The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.

    BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
    there is / was no compliant landowner contract.


    8) The Beavis also case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

    In this Claimant's case, they have no cause of action in any case due to their choice not to use POFA Schedule 4 wording, and unlike some other parking firms this means I am not liable in law. The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 1st Dec 17, 3:52 PM
    • 1,166 Posts
    • 1,204 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    The Beavis case also confirmed...
    • GT6
    • By GT6 1st Dec 17, 5:42 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    GT6
    I've just noticed that the surname on the N1 is incorrectly spelt. Presumably immaterial - and anyway too late as AOS and Defence both put in?
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 2nd Dec 17, 3:03 AM
    • 1,166 Posts
    • 1,204 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Immaterial. Slip,rule.
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

146Posts Today

2,962Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Nice debating with (all but the rude ones) of you. Bedtime for me now. Goodnight #bbcqt

  • RT @kevmthomas: @MartinSLewis It was a comment you made about the referendum being a binary choice on a non binary issue that helped me rea?

  • To clarify this. Cameron's gamble that having a stark vote'd mean his team won. He gambled wrong (that's not a stat? https://t.co/NSCT3aKvGS

  • Follow Martin