Court Papers Issued without LBCCC

newholme30

I am in the process of getting familiar with the small claims process on the sticky to help a friend who has recieved papers from Northampton.

They intend to defend fully and are about to acknowledge via MCOL. Unfortunately they ignored the PCNs due to following old advice but are positive they have never recieved a LBCCC. Due to personal circumstances they were a little disorganised at the time of the incident so have no further information on the claim other than scant details on the court papers.

Have others heard of this happening perhaps from refusing to sign for a recorded delivery letter? If so along with submitting a skeleton defence presumably they cshould also:

1. Contact the PPC to request they use POPLA as ADR (since it wasn't ever previously offered), request copies of the earlier correspondences, assert that since no LBCCC was recieved the PPC have not followed Practice Direction
2. Contact the Landowner to complain about the situation.

As ever thanks in advance.

Stroma

Who is the parking company ? Is this England or Wales ? Sometimes ppcs issue outside of jurisdiction

newholme30

Stroma wrote: »

Who is the parking company ? Is this England or Wales ? Sometimes ppcs issue outside of jurisdiction

Thanks Stroma

Everyone's favourite parking company ie PE and unfortunately England.

Stroma

You need to do both 1 & 2 or rather they do. Don't take the eye off the claim though, they need to defend this. There are people who help with claims on here, but post this on https://www.pepipoo.com as well as there are more people on there who do that. Most of the regulars here post there as well.

Just put a link to your thread there on here

newholme30

Thanks stroma

I've only just sorted out my own run in with PE but managed to head them off at the pass, so this is new territory. My mate is quite disorganised so will pass this on and will post back once the preliminaries of the claim are dealt with.

newholme30

Comments welcome on this; not sure whether it should be stronger or how well it reads. Thanks in advance as ever:

I am writing in relation to the impending county court proceedings Parking Eye has brought against me.

I have acknowledged this claim and intend to defend it in full, but note that I have not received any Letter before Claim. In fact nothing has been communicated to me that would comply with the Practice Direction on Pre-action conduct and therefore I have not had the opportunity to consider a proper response to this claim prior to the court papers being issued.

As suggested by the Practice Direction, an Alternative Dispute Resolution via POPLA would be far more appropriate under these circumstances. I do not believe that a Court of Law is the place to resolve this matter, especially given POPLA is the parking industry’s own independent appeals service, fair to all parties and will minimise costs as it is far cheaper than court for Parking Eye.

I have requested the court stay this claim because Parking Eye has failed to send any Letter before Claim and suggest Parking Eye cancel these proceedings in order it can be considered by POPLA.

Finally, please can you forward all copies of all previous correspondence sent to me in relation to this claim, along with a list of information and documents you will rely on in court as a matter of urgency?

zzzLazyDaisy

Good for you for helping your friend, but this is nowhere near enough for a defence.

Here is something to get you started

Here is something to get you started:

In the Northampton County Court
[name of PPC] -v- [name of Defendant]
Case number xxxx

DEFENCE

The defendant denies the claimant claim in full.

In particularly:
1 The claimant has no legal standing (locus standi) to pursue court action against the defendant
a) The claimant has neither claimed nor shown any proprietorial interest in the land in question
b) The claimant is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and must comply with the BPA Code of Practice which expressly provides, at paragraph 7, that if the claimant does not own the land it must have a written agreement with the landowner or its agent with specific content which includes authority from the landowner to pursue outstanding parking charges through the courts if necessary
c) If the defendant is liable under POFA as the registered keeper (which is not admitted) then it is the defendant's case that the claimant has no authority to act as agent on behalf of the landowner in pursuing these proceedings and the claimant is put to strict proof of the same

It is therefore the defendant's case that the claimant has no legal standing to bring these proceedings against the defendant and the defendant respectfully requests the court to list this matter for a Preliminary Hearing to consider the defendant's application to strike out the claimant's claim on this basis.

2 Further and/or in the alternative, the claimant failed to serve a Letter Before Claim on the defendant and/or to comply with its obligations under the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct.
a) It is the defendant's case that it would benefit the parties and relieve the court of an unnecessary burden if the parties were to complete the pre-action steps
b) In particularly it is the defendant's case that this dispute is capable of being resolved by reference to the Parking on Private Lands Appeal service (POPLA) which is the suitable form of ADR set up by the parking industry for thos purpose

Accordingly the defendant respectfully invites the court to list this case for a Preliminary Hearing to consider the defendant's application for a Stay of these proceedings and for an order referring the matter to POPLA

3 Further and in any event if the court finds against the defendant in respect of the applications to strike out listed at paragraphs 1 & 2 above, the defendant disputes the claimant's claim in full for the following reasons:

a) GPEOL
b) Signage

etc etc


You should assume that the judge knows nothing about POFA, genuine pre-estimate of loss, etc, and be prepared to spell these issues out. It is not necessary to go into detailed argument in the defence - which is only intended to show the court that there is a case to be heard - but you will need to prepare a full written argument setting out your case for each point, before the hearing (if it gets that far).

AS a side note - we are encouraging people who have had problems with PE refusing to comply with the PD to complain to the SRA. My Letter Before County Court Claim guidance thread has been updated to deal with this (see post 3) and I would urge you to forward your file of correspondence to the SRA with a request that PE's Legal Department be investigated. As your own case is now sorted, I suggest that you consider taking this next step.

See my comments at post 34 of THIS thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4727436

Daisy

newholme30

Thanks Lazy D.

There are some excellent advisors here to learn and gain confidence from; good to see you back btw.

Unfortunately (and quite ridiculously) my friends case is virtually identical to mine so that helps in contacting the Landholder, unbelievable though PE didn't even bother with the LBCCC!

I feel a draft to the SRA coming up too but interestingly I have not yet recieved written confirmation from PE that my own case is resolved despite pestering (not really concerned about this given the Landholder correspondence it is sorted but I do want it).

The previous post is to send to PE btw rather than the Court but the defence start will come in useful tonight as we formulate an approach. Perhaps this can also be beefed up by my friend on the points above.

Much appreciated

newholme30

My friend has tweaked slightly and expanded the above to their circumstances so any comments or suggestions gladly recieved before submitting:

DEFENCE

The defendant denies the claimant claim in full.

In particularly:
1 The claimant has no legal standing (locus standi) to pursue court action against the defendant
a) The claimant has neither claimed nor shown any proprietorial interest in the land in question
b) The claimant is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and must comply with the BPA Code of Practice which expressly provides, at paragraph 7, that if the claimant does not own the land it must have a written agreement with the landowner or its agent with specific content which includes authority from the landowner to pursue outstanding parking charges through the courts if necessary
c) If the defendant is liable under POFA as the registered keeper (which is not admitted) then it is the defendant's case that the claimant has no authority to act as agent on behalf of the landowner in pursuing these proceedings and the claimant is put to strict proof of the same through production of the actual contract between the claimant and the Landowner

It is therefore the defendant's case that the claimant has no legal standing to bring these proceedings against the defendant and the defendant respectfully requests the court to list this matter for a Preliminary Hearing to consider the defendant's application to strike out the claimant's claim on this basis.

2 Further and/or in the alternative, the claimant failed to serve a Letter Before Claim on the defendant and/or to comply with its obligations under the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct.
a) It is the defendant's case that it would benefit the parties and relieve the court of an unnecessary burden if the parties were to complete the pre-action steps
b) In particularly it is the defendant's case that this dispute is capable of being resolved by reference to the Parking on Private Lands Appeal service (POPLA) which is the suitable form of ADR set up by the parking industry for this purpose

Accordingly the defendant respectfully invites the court to list this case for a Preliminary Hearing to consider the defendant's application for a Stay of these proceedings and for an order referring the matter to POPLA

3 Further and in any event if the court finds against the defendant in respect of the applications to strike out listed at paragraphs 1 & 2 above, the defendant disputes the claimant's claim in full for the following reasons:

a) The claimant has not justified their charge as an appropriate, genuine pre-estimate of loss.
For this charge to be justified, a full breakdown of the losses that the claimant has suffered as a result of the car being parked at the car park is required and should add up to the amount demanded. The claimant is put to strict proof to demonstrate the actual losses that they claim to have suffered as a result of this alleged parking contravention, by way of providing their actual running costs and revenue for XXXX car park based over a 12 month period coinciding with their accounts year. Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business (e.g. provision of parking, parking enforcement or signage erection) should not be included in this breakdown, as these operational costs are the normal costs of running a business and would have been suffered irrespective of the car being parked at that car park or not.
The defendant therefore asserts that the charge is a punitive penalty and respectfully requests the court to list this matter for a Preliminary Hearing to consider the defendant's application to strike out the claimant's claim on this basis.
b) Valuation and payment of business rates

As this car park is essentially being used for the purpose of running a business, which is entirely separate from any other business the car park services, and generates revenue and profit for the claimant, the defendant does not believe that the claimant has declared the running of their business venture at this location to the Local Valuation Office and Local Authority for the payment of Business Rates.

The claimant is put to strict proof that they have so registered the business they are operating at xxxxx car park with the Valuation Office and to provide proof that Business Rates are being paid to the Local Authority, or to provide proof or explanation of their exemption from such Business Rates.


I also see that Post 53 of this thread would be worth sending to PE at the same time as the above is submitted to court:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4761168

N9eav

Just adding myself to this thread as I have similar interest, thanks:beer:

zzzLazyDaisy

newholme30 wrote: »

I feel a draft to the SRA coming up too but interestingly I have not yet recieved written confirmation from PE that my own case is resolved despite pestering (not really concerned about this given the Landholder correspondence it is sorted but I do want it).

Please do not take your eye off the ball on your own case. I have posted on your own thread so as not to de-rail this one.