County Court Claim Form received : Claimant is SIP

nigelbb

SpaceCowboy55 wrote: »

They are chasing the keeper ( me ) ; I was not the driver. I was waiting to see if the photo evidence that SIP have would prove it ... There is someone who can confirm I was at home at the time and I am sure the driver will confirm who they were : but I do not want to name the person if all that happens is that they are then pursued as I am sure it will all go wrong. If there is a way of this being stopped now with me then I would rather do it. Any advice you can give welcome .

Their out of time Notice To Keeper means that they cannot pursue you as Keeper but must chase the driver. So you just need to submit witness statements confirming that you were at home at the time of the alleged 'crime'. You also need to write to the claimant and explain to them that they are chasing the wrong person and why and that if they continue not only will they lose but you will be claiming costs.

SpaceCowboy55

nigelbb wrote: »

Their out of time Notice To Keeper means that they cannot pursue you as Keeper but must chase the driver. So you just need to submit witness statements confirming that you were at home at the time of the alleged 'crime'. You also need to write to the claimant and explain to them that they are chasing the wrong person and why and that if they continue not only will they lose but you will be claiming costs.

Can you confirm that I am under no obligation to name the driver ( I have read that elsewhere ) : I do not wish to do this

spacey2012

To explain the Right of Audience.
I see you reverse in to my neighbours fence, can I take you to court without my neighbours consent = No as I have no vested interest in his fence as he owns it.
Could I help him sue you in court, Yes I can because I would be allowed to act as a lay person and him as litigant in person.
This is because we are individuals.

Where a company is involved they are required to entertain the right of audience by using a qualified legal person, they can not send the office cleaner as they are not allowed to use lay persons when dealing company to individual .
Where the relationship is company to company, a Judge can rule on either a solicitor or a barrister, some will only hear a barrister representing some will allow a solicitor.
Some parking companies do send Joe Blogs as they are as ignorant of rights of audience as they are contract law, the judge will respond to a challenge by requesting they have this right of audience by contract and they are legally qualified.
If they are not, they usually will not hear the case.
Now what this cleverly also does is it opens the contract from the start and many do not forward the right of litigation, so the parking company has no right to sue you on behalf of the client.

Hope this explains the necessity to question the right of the person sat opposite to demonstrate to the judge they have the authority to sue you.

I have seen the whole table covered in documents and contracts before today with the judge asking them to join them together and prove right of audience, if they are not prepared for this, the patience of a judge can soon run out with the claimant.

Here is a link to the trouble you can cause by pulling rights of Audience if they send someone claiming to be "acting under the instruction of a solicitor" which most parking companies do, as solicitors are ruddy expensive, especially if you have to request an adjournment for the production of documents . :rotfl:. Not that I am saying you should deliberately abstain the hearing by doing so because they can only claim £50 for a solicitor.
Enjoy the read.
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/57199.article

SpaceCowboy55

spacey2012 wrote: »

To explain the Right of Audience.
I see you reverse in to my neighbours fence, can I take you to court without my neighbours consent = No as I have no vested interest in his fence as he owns it.
Could I help him sue you in court, Yes I can because I would be allowed to act as a lay person and him as litigant in person.
This is because we are individuals.

Where a company is involved they are required to entertain the right of audience by using a qualified legal person, they can not send the office cleaner as they are not allowed to use lay persons when dealing company to individual .
Where the relationship is company to company, a Judge can rule on either a solicitor or a barrister, some will only hear a barrister representing some will allow a solicitor.
Some parking companies do send Joe Blogs as they are as ignorant of rights of audience as they are contract law, the judge will respond to a challenge by requesting they have this right of audience by contract and they are legally qualified.
If they are not, they usually will not hear the case.
Now what this cleverly also does is it opens the contract from the start and many do not forward the right of litigation, so the parking company has no right to sue you on behalf of the client.

Hope this explains the necessity to question the right of the person sat opposite to demonstrate to the judge they have the authority to sue you.

I have seen the whole table covered in documents and contracts before today with the judge asking them to join them together and prove right of audience, if they are not prepared for this, the patience of a judge can soon run out with the claimant.

Here is a link to the trouble you can cause by pulling rights of Audience if they send someone claiming to be "acting under the instruction of a solicitor" which most parking companies do, as solicitors are ruddy expensive, especially if you have to request an adjournment for the production of documents . :rotfl:. Not that I am saying you should deliberately abstain the hearing by doing so because they can only claim £50 for a solicitor.
Enjoy the read.
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/57199.article

Thank you for the explanation. On the claim form they have 0.00 against Solicitor's costs : does that imply they will turn up without a solicitor ? The Amount Claimed is £100 + £25 Court fee = £125

Computersaysno

Right of audience...

My reading is that you need to have the proper qualification to act for another legal firm, or be an employee of a legal firm.

Self-employed part-qualified 'agents' can't handle a case for someone else.

So a 'clerk/admin bloke' can be an advocate as long as htye are an employee of a legal firm [that can be sanctioned]...surely that describes PE's agents??

Happy top be wrong as it's all a bit turgid

Coupon-mad

SpaceCowboy55 wrote: »

Can you confirm that I am under no obligation to name the driver ( I have read that elsewhere ) : I do not wish to do this

That is true.

The BPA Ltd got over-excited and wanted it to be 'an offence' in POFA not to name the driver - but the House of Commons Committee drew the line at that when the Bill was being discussed, because essentially this is only a civil matter.

See the heading 'wheel clamping & parking' here:

http://www.dataprotectionsociety.co.uk/the-protection-of-freedoms-act-2012

''If you do not wish to provide the name and address of the driver (and there is no legal obligation to do so), the PPC must have complied with all of the following procedural steps in order to be able to recover the parking charge from you. If you know that the PPC has failed to follow the steps below, then you can choose to decline to give the driver’s details with impunity; the choice is yours. If you do choose to decline you should advise the PPC just where it has failed to comply with PoFA...''

SpaceCowboy55

I will create a new defence and post up over the weekend starting with guidance earlier from Spacey2012.

I received the "Evidence" pack today - and guess what - included in it is this Pepipoo thread http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=79614: could be interesting when it is shown to the judge and it says why their claim isn't valid - let's hope he questions them .

I should have received this by 9/10 according to the Particulars of claim - so I guess times so that I wouldn't see it before I submit my defence - or am I being cynical.

Reminder to self : Have to submit defence by 23/10

Coupon-mad

SpaceCowboy55 wrote: »

I will create a new defence and post up over the weekend starting with guidance earlier from Spacey2012.

I received the "Evidence" pack today - and guess what - included in it is this Pepipoo thread http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=79614: could be interesting when it is shown to the judge and it says why their claim isn't valid - let's hope he questions them .

I should have received this by 9/10 according to the Particulars of claim - so I guess times so that I wouldn't see it before I submit my defence - or am I being cynical.

Reminder to self : Have to submit defence by 23/10

It is down to you to rebut in your full defence every point made in the Particulars of Claim and the evidence, blow by blow. Anything not rebutted is considered accepted.

Do not expect the judge to question anything unless you spell it out in your defence. So if they have included a forum thread then your defence will have to re-state what has been said in that forum thread that shows the charge to be unenforceable and point out that an unrepresented defendant is perfectly entitled to get advice using whatever means he decides. Nothing wrong with forum advice, SIP!

I think the difference in name calls into question whether the same firm is even bringing this claim, look for discrepancies with:

- the signage
- the ticket
- their letters
- the landowner contract (which you must ask to be disclosed - see what Daisy says as I think this needs a separate disclosure order)
- the AOS membership

So check for the discrepancies. The OFT not only says that a charge has to be a pre-estimate of loss but also that it has to be clear who the consumer was contracting with and that this is the party bringing proceedings (is it Simple Intelligent Parking, or Stop Illegal Parking, or should it have been the landowner if SIP don't have the status or contract to take this to court - are they a mere agent?).

Nigelbb pointed out that the OFT said to the BPA in 2012:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/63327422#Comment_63327422

HTH

SpaceCowboy55

Coupon-mad wrote: »

It is down to you to rebut in your full defence every point made in the Particulars of Claim and the evidence, blow by blow. Anything not rebutted is considered accepted.

Do not expect the judge to question anything unless you spell it out in your defence. So if they have included a forum thread then your defence will have to re-state what has been said in that forum thread that shows the charge to be unenforceable and point out that an unrepresented defendant is perfectly entitled to get advice using whatever means he decides. Nothing wrong with forum advice, SIP!

I think the difference in name calls into question whether the same firm is even bringing this claim, look for discrepancies with:

- the signage
- the ticket
- their letters
- the landowner contract (which you must ask to be disclosed - see what Daisy says as I think this needs a separate disclosure order)
- the AOS membership

So check for the discrepancies. The OFT not only says that a charge has to be a pre-estimate of loss but also that it has to be clear who the consumer was contracting with and that this is the party bringing proceedings (is it Simple Intelligent Parking, or Stop Illegal Parking, or should it have been the landowner if SIP don't have the status or contract to take this to court - are they a mere agent?).

Nigelbb pointed out that the OFT said to the BPA in 2012:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/63327422#Comment_63327422

HTH

What was even more of a hoot to me was the inclusion of a "sample" POPLA letter - where they send you a SIP appeal form - confusing in itself and the POPLA form on the reverse: 3 sheets of paper all gobbledegook ( is that a legal term ) : aimed to confuse ; the Notice to Owner "evidence" is not a sample but the edited one that I put on Pepipoo - not sure what that's meant to prove.
I do need to send a letter to SIP requesting documents/ info - is there a template of what to ask for ? ( if not I know I want to see the contract they have with the landowner and why ) - anything else worth asking for. I also need to provide them evidence of my 2nd appeal that they haven't included - which points out why their notice to owner is invalid - provided by Broadsword : so if they haven't complied with POFA - the law governing this it is all b****s ; I was waiting with interest to see if any of the photos included the driver - so they still don't know who that is , I am under no obligation to tell them and as they sent their NTO on 10/05 ( should have been within 56 days of 09/02 ) following an alleged infringement on 09/02 : but they don't.

btw do "expert" forumites who are local to the court in question come to assist or is that a no no ?

I have no fear of court : I just fear not being able to quote something in response - or a judge like the one in St.Helens who didn't want to listen.

What does concern me is I need to assume that the judge doesn't know POFA : as this is a small claims court with joe public : I would have assumed that the judge is the expert and that one could rely on him to provide clarification on thelaw given that it's designed not to have solicitors. I would have expected "normal " language , rather than legal language

SpaceCowboy55

Coupon-mad wrote: »

It is down to you to rebut in your full defence every point made in the Particulars of Claim and the evidence, blow by blow. Anything not rebutted is considered accepted.

Do not expect the judge to question anything unless you spell it out in your defence. So if they have included a forum thread then your defence will have to re-state what has been said in that forum thread that shows the charge to be unenforceable and point out that an unrepresented defendant is perfectly entitled to get advice using whatever means he decides. Nothing wrong with forum advice, SIP!



I think the difference in name calls into question whether the same firm is even bringing this claim, look for discrepancies with:

- the signage
- the ticket
- their letters
- the landowner contract (which you must ask to be disclosed - see what Daisy says as I think this needs a separate disclosure order)
- the AOS membership

So check for the discrepancies. The OFT not only says that a charge has to be a pre-estimate of loss but also that it has to be clear who the consumer was contracting with and that this is the party bringing proceedings (is it Simple Intelligent Parking, or Stop Illegal Parking, or should it have been the landowner if SIP don't have the status or contract to take this to court - are they a mere agent?).

Nigelbb pointed out that the OFT said to the BPA in 2012:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/63327422#Comment_63327422

HTH

I went to take a few pictures of the signs ( again ) a couple of days ago - there is one that says " YOU WILL BE CLAMPED " - well out of date. I did ring the council to try and find out whether they had permission to erect the signs - but they wanted a diagram to show the signs : SIP kindly provided that today as "evidence" so when I've got this out of the way I can see scope for some activity. I also read somewhere about finding out who the landowner is I cant see a way of doing this other than paying landregistry : I spoke to a few of the businesses whose customers use the car park but they didn't know who owned the land. the only clue it isn't SIP is on one of the signs : Neither SIP nor the proprietor ... ergo they aren't the land owner . If all this wasn't so time consuming ( of time I haven't got ) it could be fun ....