ParkingEye Ltd County Court Claim Form stage

Coupon-mad

That should be almost there - if it fits in the MCOL word counted box! I know bargepole would say keep it minimal at this stage.

I noticed this and you need to know that the POFA doesn't set out any rules about signage so remove the bit in bold:

1. The Claimant’s signage notices are inadequate and are non-compliant with Schedule 4, Section 56, of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), and the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme, Code of Practice 2012 (BPA COP) principles.

This should be part of point #6:

The strict requirements of Section 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 required for registered keeper liability have not been satisfied and therefore there is no case for the registered keeper to answer.

And I would say this needs to be moved up as defence point #8 in its own right:

The Claimant may rely on the recent ParkingEye Ltd -v- Barry Beavis & Martin Wardley case heard at the County Court at Cambridge on 22 April 2014 by HHJ Moloney QC, and the judgment handed down in the County Court at Southend on 19 May 2014. The facts of that case, which is proceeding to the Court of Appeal, differ significantly and can be distinguished from the present case on a number of factual and legal points. This charge is not commercially justified.

If you can't fit it all in then remove some of the stuff about POPLA and use it later instead once you get the case moved to your local court (after the N180 DQ).

JonnyRotten

Hey Coupon-mad, thanks yet again

I have not registered for Gateway access and so I am sending the defence by post. The copy of N9B (CPC) and the Defendant's defence on 4 pages of A4 1.5 spaced and wide margins for notes.

It doesn't say anywhere on the N1CPC notes or N9B that there is any limit. I presume any character limit is for the online MCOL. So as they have not told us on their form they will get what we send!

Thanks for the pointers, good spot the POFA reference, it was when that paragraph mentioned relevant other detail as sub points.

I will wait a while longer to see what bargepole has to say but I must put it in tomorrow morning's post as the N1 was dated 28 Jul 14.

JR for a while longer

JonnyRotten

Hello again defenders

A quick update.

Having read the parking Prankster's two documents I decided that, following service of the above initial defence to the NCCBC, I would write to ParkingEyeLtd (PE) and ask for further information and clarification. I gave a deadline and stated that should they ignore it a formal application may be submitted to the court under Court Civil Procedure Rules Practice Direction Part 18. I made a hefty number of requests and of course did not expect to receive any response, which is still the case. This action is allowed because the claim has not yet been allocated to the Small Claims Track (SCT) and it is useful to include to show that PE did not provide information to place both parties on an equitable footing as stated in the CPR PD rules.

I received the N149A Notice of proposed allocation to the small claims track and Form N180 Directions questionnaire (small claims track) (04.14) a couple of days ago.

I spoke to NCCBC to ask for additional guidance and was told that I should write a covering letter with N180 stating to the court that I wished to be Lay Representative for the RK, my spouse. I added that this is iaw the Lay Representatives (Right of Audience) Order 1999 in case the Judges are unaware of this right. I will also write a covering letter as suggested by the Parking Prankster in his Directions Questionnaire section, again using some of the points from the initial defence.

I intend to tick the SC Mediation Service box and see what PE do.

I have to decide upon which local CC to ask for and the Parking Prankster suggests research on CC outcomes against PE. Can anyone help with this for a choice between Harrogate, Darlington and York CCs?

I see on PePiPoo the boycottmorrisons case lost because of poor preparation and no defence against the Beavis and Wardley ruling. Bargepole's response is telling.

Yet to go to the Land Registry to find out who the landowner is.
Do I need to do more?

still JR
still encouraging the RK not to submit and pay

Coupon-mad

Have a look at the links in post #5 of the Newbies sticky as I recommend you don't ask for mediation but instead put a covering letter asking the court to consider using their discretion to 'stay' the claim for POPLA instead or failing that, until the outcome of the Beavis appeal. Quite a few people here get their cases stayed but it's not a fait accompli, as some Judges send back a form saying 'we'll consider an application to adjourn if you pay a fee'!

Have you read liseylou's thread as she just won v PE on 11th Sept, on signage, despite them trying to push the Beavis case down the Judge's throat!

JonnyRotten

Coupon-mad, thank you

No, I saw a mention in PePiPoo about a case being won but had not found it, I shall search liseylou for it.

All I have read from the likes of the Parking Prankster and the CPR PD say that the court looks unfavourably upon those that do not try to cut costs by attempting to mediate, or not following the due process. The PP says that PE do not always tick the SC Mediation Service box and try all sorts of tricks with it. So ticking the box is not going to harm. Also, it is not binding and one can still go to court anyway and the detail of mediation is not communicated to the court.

Have just re-read a few threads in Newbies #5 and liseylou's experience.

My point from much earlier, it is a lottery not Law where one Judge makes a different pronouncement from another and sees these issues differently.

There is an article in the Daily Rag this morning about more Judge decision buffoonery, and I know that Judge, although not well, and although that is another issue the same principle applies. I think that he may be well past any normal retirement but he is still pronouncing.

Judges, are out of touch, dare I say it, should any of them get a Parking Charge Notice no doubt the 'Establishment' soon cleans that issue up for them! But what would I know?

UK Law is long overdue an overhaul (a complete rewrite)!

Anyway rant over, any advice on which of the 3 CCs is the one to choose?

Getting more Rotten every day

bod1467

For clarity, the liseylou thread is here not Pepipoo.

JonnyRotten

Hmm, thanks bod1467

Thought that is what sentence 3 said?

'Have just re-read a few threads in Newbies #5 and liseylou's experience.'

Still Rotten

bod1467

I was merely responding to sentence 1 ...

"No, I saw a mention in PePiPoo about a case being won but had not found it, I shall search liseylou for it."

... and thought you meant you were struggling to find her thread on Pepipoo.

JonnyRotten

bod1467 Cheers

Cleared that up.

JR

Coupon-mad

To answer your pm which I can't reply to as you've not enabled your user account to receive them:

OP = Original Poster (thread starter - it's an acronym you will see used on any forum). If you Google 'forum acronyms OP' you find it!

How are you getting on - doubt the legal cover helped did they, as a court case is already in hand?

Which Court will you be at?