Court Papers Issued without LBCCC

newholme30

N9eav wrote: »

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

Welcome - yours caught my eye too!

Cheers :beer:

zzzLazyDaisy

Without going into the whys and wherefores - the genuine pre-estimate of loss pointis not suitable for a preliminary hearing. I have made some suggestions below and I am sure that other regulars who are more experienced than me on drafting defences will have further comments to make.

newholme30 wrote: »

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 [STRIKE]to strike out[/STRIKE] 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.


The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms. In this case the parking terms were [set out here what they were £x per hour? explain what happened in brief and what the actual loss was if any]

The defendant therefore asserts that the charge is a punitive penalty and therefore unenforceable
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.


[/URL]

Virginia_Slim

I have today received a Claim Formapparently from Northampton CC regarding a parking dispute.
Following the “old” advice I picked up whenthe problem first occurred in 2012, I wrote a single letter to Parking Eyeexplaining that (1) I wasn’t the driver and that they needed to contact thedriver and (2) the driver was legitimately parked in the hotel car park while visiting a business colleague who was staying at the hotel.
Parking Eye responded with moredemanding letters, which following the “old” advice, I ignored. This includesignoring the “Letter Before Action”.
Obviously I wish to send in a disagreement tothe claim. My problem (other than feeling squished by a bully) is that I do notunderstand the abbreviations thrown about on this otherwise useful thread: LBCCC, PCN, PPC, SRA, GPEOL MCOL?
Any clues would be helpful. Many thanks.

zzzLazyDaisy

Please start your own thread so we can give you specific advice on your own situation

newholme30

Thanks D - I will await some other (productive) additions to the thread to get back to my friend.

zzzLazyDaisy

Coupon-mad has a standard post with links to other threads to help people draft a defence. I don't have a note of it but hopefully she will be along soon.

D

Coupon-mad

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Coupon-mad has a standard post with links to other threads to help people draft a defence. I don't have a note of it but hopefully she will be along soon.

D

This is my link of information and advice about defending a stupid PPC small claim:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=82744&st=0&gopid=862298

HTH

newholme30

Thanks Coupon, muchly appreciated

newholme30

So, I now have a wealth of information from the various recommendations and am drafting full defence along lines of above and particularly:

1. How is contract formed - no explicit notice of onerous terms and even if incorporated into contract terms would be unfair (UTCCR)
2. Is charge reasonable - "obligation" to leave the car park or face high compensation, unfair and under Reg 8 would not be binding
3. No Authority to issue charges - contract between PE and landowner (not just the occupier) does not give explicit delegation to levy charges
4. GPEOL - liquidated damages are only enforceable if sum claimed does not exceed genuine pre-estimate of loss

The skeleton draft in the previous posts seems good to go but unsure about the valuation section. Comments on this point are welcome.

Thanks

N9eav

As I am in the same boat. I would have thought that failing to follow practise direction would be the first point of attack? (as well as the other defences) If a company does not even follow the basic rules, then why would a court permit a full hearing, again going back to the fact that they have in house lawyers and the man in the street has no knowledge.