Court papers parking eye ** help**

nigelbb

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

I heard that they have instructed a barrister who is dealing with all the small claims court cases that go to hearing. As a disclaimer, I should say that's just hearsay, but it would make sense - if correct, it will almost certainly be a pupil barrister or someone just setting out in their career (they won't be able to afford a QC!). If that is true, that person will get up to speed very quickly with the issues - which makes it all the more important to comply with the Pre-Action Conduct, because it is perfectly acceptable for them to keep quiet about issues that don't help their clients case, as it is up to the Defendant to raise those issues. Hopefully any barrister worth their salt when being served with a whole bunch of correspondence threatening sanctions for failure to comply with the Practice Direction, will advise the PPC to drop the case (I appreciate none of this helps the OP as she is past that point, but am just pointing this out in case anyone else is reading this who has received a Letter Before Claim / Action)

ParkingEye have appointed solicitors LPC Law to represent them at County Court hearings. http://www.lpc-law.co.uk

zzzLazyDaisy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

See what zzzLazy Daisy advises but I am thinking save the Aldi letter for your actual response (as opposed to this acknowledgement).

Hi Coupon - OP has gone beyond this Pre-action stage as she did not respond to the letter before action and has now been served with court papers.

The "Acknowledgment" refers to the pre-court conduct and the "Acknowlegment of Service" is part of the actual Court Proceedings (confusing, I know).

OP you MUST send off the acknowledgement of service, if you have not already done so. This buys you 28 days in total to send in your defence.

Once the court proceedings have been started they are like a juggernaut, they don't stop unless the Claimant (presumably ParkingEye) write to the court and formally withdraws the claim. If they do not do this, the court case continues.

If you do not meet the court deadline for filing the acknowledgment and defence, PE can ask the court to enter judgement in default against you, and you will get a CCJ.

Your first line of your defence should be that the landowner has confirmed that the parking charge has been cancelled and therefore there is no case to answer as the Claimant (parkingeye) is only acting as agent for the landowner, and so cannot continue legal action against you when the landowner has already confirmed that there is no cause of action, and attach a copy of aldi's letter cancelling the charge. On that basis ask the court to strike out parkingeye's claim.

BUT then go on to say, further and in any event....

and set out your defence as it would have been if ALDI had not cancelled the charge, because until the court has actually ordered that the claim be struck out, or until Parking eye has actually withdrawn the claim, these court proceedings will continue.

D

Semolina_pudding

Thank you Coupon-mad & zzzLazyDaisy
Firstly the council have said I should have an answer with 10 days which would still fall in with my time line to return a defence. I intend to send off The ACK OF SERVICE tues @ the latest first class REC DEL,didn't know if this was the best option or use the moneyclaim website,a bit old fashioned and pref the post (famous last words!)
My thoughts were to state I will defend the claim but attach a copy of A Aldi's letter with a covering letter briefly (trying to steer clear of tangents ) highlighting the call of friday from Aldi HQ saying that the offer of a cancellation would be facilitated once she had put me through to PE so I could pay the £50...the AREA HO has already put it in writing that it's cancelled.I wait with baited breath for the post tmro as I did ask ALDI HQ to also confirm the conversation re the 'costs'....hope it does arrive then I can send a copy of that too.In my mind that's bribery 'give us £50 and we will forget it!!!' As it's PE taking action would the court strike it on the say so of ALDI, as they may not be the landowners,just tenants.
I am crossing fingers that the Judge will think 21 mins is petty and not allow it to progress,but considering PE HQ is only 16miles away they might turn up mob handed,if it's gonna happen,it will happen to me!
So at present I could just do with a yea or nea on the inclusion of Aldi's letter/my letter with the ACK OF SERVICE


Must get some sleep zzz

zzzLazyDaisy

1 The Acknowledgement of Service is just that - you are acknowledging service and informing the court that you need more time to prepare a defence.

2 Use MCOL to serve the Acknowledgement - that's what it is there for and there is a clear record of correspondence.

3 AFAIK you can't attach further correspondence to an Ack sent by mcol, but even if you do, Northampton is just a processing centre, this stage is purely procedural, they are not going to read what you send in anyway.

4 Presumably the claim form has PE's solicitor's details? In that case ONCE YOU HAVE FILED THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT WITH THE COURT your best bet is to write directly to the solicitor, quoting the sols's reference, and the court case reference. Inform the sol that the parking charge which is the subject of the action has been cancelled. enclose A COPY of the letter from ALDI and Tell them that if you do not hear from them within 14 days with confirmation that the court case has been withdrawn, you will file your defence and seek costs against their client.

5 Don't rely on the case being withdrawn - make a start at preparing your defence as there is no guarantee that the solicitor will deal with your letter and withdraw the claim before the deadline for your defence.

EDITED to make clear that the enclosure should be a copy of ALDI's letter, not the original.

Hovite_2

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

1 The Acknowledgement of Service is just that - you are acknowledging service and informing the court that you need more time to prepare a defence.

2 Use MCOL to serve the Acknowledgement - that's what it is there for and there is a clear record of correspondence.

3 AFAIK you can't attach further correspondence to an Ack sent by mcol, but even if you do, Northampton is just a processing centre, this stage is purely procedural, they are not going to read what you send in anyway.

4 Presumably the claim form has PE's solicitor's details? In that case ONCE YOU HAVE FILED THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT WITH THE COURT your best bet is to write directly to the solicitor, quoting the sols's reference, and the court case reference. Inform the sol that the parking charge which is the subject of the action has been cancelled. enclose the letter from ALDI and Tell them that if you do not hear from them within 14 days with confirmation that the court case has been withdrawn, you will file your defence and seek costs against their client.

5 Don't rely on the case being withdrawn - make a start at preparing your defence as there is no guarantee that the solicitor will deal with your letter and withdraw the claim before the deadline for your defence.

Enclose a COPY of the letter from Aldi not THE letter !

zzzLazyDaisy

Hovite wrote: »

Enclose a COPY of the letter from Aldi not THE letter !

Thank you! I have edited my post to make this clear.

HO87

PE are dealing with all correspondence in-house. LPC Law are being used only in those (defended) cases that go to a full hearing.

As much as I agree with zzzLazyDaisy's analysis of the process the "juggernaut" can come to halt if PE do not pay the hearing fee. I understand that there have been some examples of this recently - though they are likely to have been oversights as opposed to a result of any deliberate course of action.

One of the questions you should be asking your self at this stage is whether you would be prepared to take part in mediation. PE's case is that you owe them money. Period. They will undoubtedly be looking for money out of the equation whereas your case - not unnaturally - is that you don't owe them a penny. And quite properly so. Is that a situation that is capable of being resolved by negotiation?

zzzLazyDaisy

HO87 wrote: »

PE are dealing with all correspondence in-house. LPC Law are being used only in those (defended) cases that go to a full hearing.

As much as I agree with zzzLazyDaisy's analysis of the process the "juggernaut" can come to halt if PE do not pay the hearing fee. I understand that there have been some examples of this recently - though they are likely to have been oversights as opposed to a result of any deliberate course of action.

This is true, but my point is that OP should not delay filing a defence, as this allows PE to enter judgement in default, in whch case the claim would never get as far as a hearing fee.

One of the questions you should be asking your self at this stage is whether you would be prepared to take part in mediation. PE's case is that you owe them money. Period. They will undoubtedly be looking for money out of the equation whereas your case - not unnaturally - is that you don't owe them a penny. And quite properly so. Is that a situation that is capable of being resolved by negotiation?

Parking Eye have failed to follow the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct. Their letters before action do not comply with the Practice Direction. One of the requirements of the PD is that the Letter before claim should invite the defendant to enter into 'an appropriate form of ADR', which PE does not do - presumably because the 'appropriate form of ADR' in this case would be POPLA. So any defence to county court proceedings should 1) point out the Claimant's failure to comply with the PD; 2) invite the Claimant to enter into ADR through POPLA; 3) invite the court to stay the proceedings to enable the parties to comply with the PD.

EDITED TO REPEAT that in addition to the above, it is essential that OP files a full defence against the claim.

For info, here is the full text of The Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct, Annex A Para 2, setting out what is required to be included in the Claimant's Letter before claim. Parking Eye's 'letter before action' (ie letter before claim) is defective in almost every respect.

2. Claimant’s letter before claim
2.1
The claimant’s letter should give concise details about the matter. This should enable the defendant to understand and investigate the issues without needing to request further information. The letter should include –
(1) the claimant’s full name and address;
(2) the basis on which the claim is made (i.e. why the claimant says the defendant is liable);
(3) a clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based;
(4) what the claimant wants from the defendant;
(5) if financial loss is claimed, an explanation of how the amount has been calculated; and
(6) details of any funding arrangement (within the meaning of rule 43.2(1)(k) of the CPR) that has been entered into by the claimant.
2.2
The letter should also –
(1) list the essential documents on which the claimant intends to rely;
(2) set out the form of ADR (if any) that the claimant considers the most suitable and invite the defendant to agree to this;
(3) state the date by which the claimant considers it reasonable for a full response to be provided by the defendant; and
(4) identify and ask for copies of any relevant documents not in the claimant's possession and which the claimant wishes to see.
2.3
Unless the defendant is known to be legally represented the letter should –
(1) refer the defendant to this Practice Direction and in particular draw attention to paragraph 4 concerning the court's powers to impose sanctions for failure to comply with the Practice Direction; and
(2) inform the defendant that ignoring the letter before claim may lead to the claimant starting proceedings and may increase the defendant's liability for costs.


Daisy .

HO87

It is useful for those in receipt of PE's claims to have immediate access to the PD so thank you. However, we need to keep in mind the fact that PE's cases are making their way to hearings with little if any adverse comment from the judiciary and from that point of view what is needed is a defence in-depth not just one that relies on PE's failure to abide by the pre-action protocols.

Might I suggest that the OP concentrates their efforts on contacting Aldi (or whomever), which has the potential to "make this go away", rather than thinking up demands for what, at the moment, is extraneous detail?

Finally, if PE's particulars of claim in this case is worded in a similar way to other current cases then it is highly unlikely to disclose a cause of action. That may well be far more useful that demanding details of planning permissions etc.

spacey2012

I would be counter claiming nominal damages of £1 each for harassment from parking Eye and Aldi for failure to communicate actions between agent and principle.
Make them both get of their company solicitors off their backsides and join you in court for Day out.
Pound says they pick the phone up to parking eye and chuck the case straight out when the counter claim lands in the Aldi office.