Northampton CCBC Claim Form

Ed666_2

Stroma wrote: »

Sip Car Parks Ltd doesn't exist, and I'm sure they cannot trade as that name. But I'm not sure if it has any bearing on the claim. The stop illegal parking garbage is worthy of a complaint to the bpa and dvla, even though they have changed that now, they still had a claim of authority on their site and paperwork

I was wondering if it made any difference as the first details I have about the company I'm dealing with is actually on the Court Claim form.

Stroma

I'm not sure, you could ask over on https://www.pepipoo.com on this, they can help with a defence on the small claim also

Coupon-mad

1) They state they sent an NTO, and then a final notice only 19 days later. That date is wrong, but I believe they can't just change that later, it's set because it's in the claim? Also, should I make a separate point about this not being enough time to reply to the NTO?

Yep, state the date is wrong and so misleading, but either way it did not give the registered keeper sufficient time to respond to the NTO.

2) As to the amount, previous letters they sent me, and the PCN state that the charge is higher than the £100 they are now claiming. Should I mention this in a point, given that there were 4 different levels of charge depending on how quickly I paid (thus showing it's not a loss, as their loss wouldn't change), and they have dropped it from £132 to £100 with no explanation?

Definitely.

3) What should I write to them and ask for as evidence I wish to see so as to build my case?

A copy of the contract with the landowner and their explanation of what legal status they have which enables them to make a claim against a visitor on land they do not own, in the light of ParkingEye v Sharma 23rd Oct 2013 (Brentford County Court) Case No. 3QT62646.

Also include county court decisions as shown here which help your case:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=62971894&postcount=65

..they are never 'precedents' but can be compelling, particularly a case that went to a higher court on appeal like OPC v Thirlow(sp?) which was very much about signage. Have you got those cases listed where you mention 'references 1 – 9 in Appendix 1 : Court References in support of Points 5 and 6 above'? If so, good!

Also, the Final Letter and the PCN has an address as "Stop Illegal Parking" without any company name, the Charge Notices say "SIP Car Parks Limited" and the final notice and the Court Claim form both say "SIP Parking Limited". Should I raise this as a point too?

Definitely. The Office of Fair Trading, in contact with the BPA last year, stated (obviously) that a court would need to be satisfied that the same legal entity (company) has lodged the small claim as:
-was the AOS listed member
-had the contract with the landowner
-was named on signage
-had their name on all letters & documents about this 'charge'.

4) Steve Clark from the BPA said it would be wrong for them to quote POFA, and I sent him a letter for him to investigate it, but I've not heard back from him for a few weeks, should I make a point abut the BPA investigating the misuse of the POFA?

Yep, follow this up with an email to his Management Team, as Steve is on holiday this week (we know lots of stuff about the PPC World on this forum!). Send a follow up saying you are aware Steve Clark is away but you need Steve's findings from his investigation weeks ago, because time is of the essence and you are submitting a court defence this week:

[EMAIL="david.m@britishparking.co.uk"]david.m@britishparking.co.uk[/EMAIL]


And re this point below, I think this should be the first thing you say and you should expand what you mean here because you need to spell out that rk liability does not legally apply AT ALL (the court/judge may well not know).

''It is the defendant's case that the claimant has no cause of action against the defendant. Before POFA 2012, registered keeper liability did not apply and cannot be applied retrospectively. SIP have the wrong defendant and should have identified the driver at the time if they wanted to allege a contract existed.

Accordingly the defendant respectfully requests the court to list this case for a Preliminary Hearing to consider the defendant's application for an Order striking out the claimant's claim.''

Ed666_2

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yep, state the date is wrong and so misleading, but either way it did not give the registered keeper sufficient time to respond to the NTO.




Definitely.

Should I include that in the original statement, or in the expanded evidence?

Coupon-mad wrote: »

A copy of the contract with the landowner and their explanation of what legal status they have which enables them to make a claim against a visitor on land they do not own, in the light of ParkingEye v Sharma 23rd Oct 2013 (Brentford County Court) Case No. 3QT62646.

Also include county court decisions as shown here which help your case:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=62971894&postcount=65

..they are never 'precedents' but can be compelling, particularly a case that went to a higher court on appeal like OPC v Thirlow(sp?) which was very much about signage. Have you got those cases listed where you mention 'references 1 – 9 in Appendix 1 : Court References in support of Points 5 and 6 above'? If so, good!

Include those cases in with the letter to SIP, or in the defence?

Yes the 9 cases are included at the end of the defence letter.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Definitely. The Office of Fair Trading, in contact with the BPA last year, stated (obviously) that a court would need to be satisfied that the same legal entity (company) has lodged the small claim as:
-was the AOS listed member
-had the contract with the landowner
-was named on signage
-had their name on all letters & documents about this 'charge'.

Should I include this as an additional point, in the intro, or as part of one of the points?

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yep, follow this up with an email to his Management Team, as Steve is on holiday this week (we know lots of stuff about the PPC World on this forum!). Send a follow up saying you are aware Steve Clark is away but you need Steve's findings from his investigation weeks ago, because time is of the essence and you are submitting a court defence this week:

[EMAIL="david.m@britishparking.co.uk"]david.m@britishparking.co.uk[/EMAIL]

Ok e-mailed him, got an out of office back! lol Although it only says he's off Friday, so hopefully back tomorrow.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

YeAnd re this point below, I think this should be the first thing you say and you should expand what you mean here because you need to spell out that rk liability does not legally apply AT ALL (the court/judge may well not know).

''It is the defendant's case that the claimant has no cause of action against the defendant. Before POFA 2012, registered keeper liability did not apply and cannot be applied retrospectively. SIP have the wrong defendant and should have identified the driver at the time if they wanted to allege a contract existed.

Accordingly the defendant respectfully requests the court to list this case for a Preliminary Hearing to consider the defendant's application for an Order striking out the claimant's claim.''

So put that paragraph right at the start before the bit about them pursuing a penalty? Should I include the striking out part before or after the other main points about the penalty clause and the contractual authority?

Thanks for all the help.

Coupon-mad

So put that paragraph right at the start before the bit about them pursuing a
penalty? Should I include the striking out part before or after the other main
points about the penalty clause and the contractual authority?

The bit outlining why you think the case has no cause of action and should be struck out, should be first I think.

Should I include that in the original statement, or in the expanded evidence?

I would put that in the expended evidence, personally, as it's a 'detail'.

Include those cases in with the letter to SIP, or in the defence?

I would cite all the cases in the defence. When writing to SIP I would adduce the latest loss by PE and state that they have no prospect of success as they do not own the land so have no legal status to bring a claim, as in PE v Sharma (cite the case number and date). Also draw to their attention in the letter, that you have asked the court to strike the claim out as - prior to 1st October 2012 - there was no claim possible in law against a registered keeper where the driver is not known (and you can't recall after all this time who drove the car on a random day, and even if you could, it is SIP's case to make, not your duty to assist them).

Also point out the discrepancies with their legal name as a point of defence.

And in the expanded part, and in the letter to SIP, state that it has made it impossible to tell who the AOS member was/wasn't at the time, who had/didn't have the contract with the landowner, whose name was on the signage, whose name was on the 'PCN' and postal Notices and whether that is even the same company who have now filed this claim. State in the letter to SIP that this sort of misleading name and series of discrepancies throughout will make it impossible for a judge to be satisfied regarding any of their evidence so they are best advised to reconsider their position now, rather than take this farce to a hearing...

Do all you can in the letter, to come across as someone who means business and won't be paying them, nor would you be easily beaten in court.

Ed666_2

Interesting thing to add, today I received a letter from SIP in relation to the complaint I made to the BPA about them quoting POFA when it didn't apply.

They apologised for quoting it when it didn't apply and blamed having two automated systems for final notices, and mine came off the wrong one! lol

They're still asking me to pay though. lol

Umkomaas

Ed666 wrote: »

Interesting thing to add, today I received a letter from SIP in relation to the complaint I made to the BPA about them quoting POFA when it didn't apply.

They apologised for quoting it when it didn't apply and blamed having two automated systems for final notices, and mine came off the wrong one! lol

They're still asking me to pay though. lol

They make a mistake, apologise, that's the end of it.

Motorist makes a mistake - that's £100 thank you. :cool:

Ed666_2

The strange thing is that they blame the two systems which send out final notices, but yet they also claimed it on their original NTO, which annoyingly I can't find, so that seems to be a lie!

Any suggestions as to whether and how to include this?

Coupon-mad

I would say that both the initial Notice and the Notice to Owner completely mis-stated the legal position to the recipient, and that this has been the subject of a BPA complaint, and that SIP admitted it. As such, their Notices were in clear breach of the CPUTR 2008 since they claimed their charge was supported by statute, when it was not. It is an offence to mislead a consumer so that they would be likely to be persuaded to make a different financial decision than they might have done otherwise - the Notices were prejudicial to the recipient, whether or not the keeper actually paid.

In their evidence the PPC will include that NTO anyway and if they don't you can make it the subject of a disclosure order, I think.

Ed666_2

I'm not sure they will be supplying the original NTO as part of their court documents, as the Particulars of the Claim display an incorrect date for when they claim they actually sent it. And I mean months wrong. So pulling that out would only prove the claim wrong.