PCM parking ticket rejection

Redx

post #4 of the NEWBIES sticky thread deals with debt collectors, who you should IGNORE, including one of the worst ones which is DRP , we dont want to see any more posts about any debt collectors, especially not DRP , so dont open them, dont read them , they are toilet paper and should not be read or acted upon, they have no powers at all

check the october 2015 blogs on pranksters blogsite, look at the last one dated 30th october 2015, its all about ADR

his november blogs have the Beavis case issues since the supreme court ruling in november 2015 as well

if a ppc or landowner wishes to take you to court, they can do so, anyone can take anyone to court for almost anything, doesnt mean they will win, but they have 6 years to try it

DRP and possibly the PPC will chase you for the alleged debt for 6 years, get over it, its the way it is, you may not like it but the only real choices you have are pay up or front it out and if necessary defend yourself in the court stages if it ever comes to that , whereas you (and many others) are looking for a simple magic solution that makes this alleged debt "go away" , well there isnt one

Coupon-mad

Moneymike wrote: »

I have tried to follow the advice of participants in this thread of going to the parking pranksters blogsite to get some advice on ADR and what I should do about this invoice I was issued on the 13th October 2015. When checking the parking pranksters website I was unable to find relevant advice on the site. So, I decided to follow the do nothing approach and now I have just received my first Debt Recovery Letter which I am not surprised about but I did noticed that it has come late and also not accurate.

Please see the Recovery letter which I received on 22/12/2015: [IMG]hxxp://i64.tinypic.com/15ejl07.jpg[/IMG]

To add - according to the attached letter they make reference to a letter sent to me on the 4/12/2015 of which is completely false as I did not receive. What I also concerned about is their reference to the landmark court ruling Beavis-v-ParkingEye LTD where it was found that the amount of the parking charge was legally enforceable. I have read that courts are using this as a presidence.

How does this affect my case and what action should I take now? If its possible could someone get me the links of where I can find advise on the parking pranksters blogsite in relation to my case

Oh stop, get a grip, please.

This is an oxymoron in your post title:

Help Needed - Debt Recovery Letter

You do not need help.

DRPlus letters are boring and ignorable, these are more than adequately already covered in the full in post #4 of the NEWBIES thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64350600#Comment_64350600

No more threads or posts about those letters, pretty please, we have thousands too many already. Boring boring, easily Googled and even easier to search on this forum (use 'search this forum') to read a few of the repeated, tedious and utterly unnecessary threads saying exactly the same, week in, week out. ALL being told to ignore the letter chain for almost a decade.

No, it makes no odds that they've added the Beavis case to their letters.

No, it really doesn't. It is still ONLY a debt collector letter.

Come back only if you get 'real' letters. Not boring boring DRPlus and Zenith template threatogram drivel already done to death on this forum.

Moneymike

To my surprise, I have just received a CCJ claim form 2 years after the PCN has been issued. And what is really worrying is the amount the are asking for £444 see the link below for the claim form.

Please could you advise me on the actions I should take? Can I win this case?

hxxp://tinypic.com/r/dneiw0/9

Redx

no idea why you are surprised

the PPC had 6 years to issue a court claim and gallstones encourage them to do so as they get paid either way

I even told you this in post #12 above ( a long time ago )

now you go to post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread, read it , read the BARGEPOLE post and do the AOS online

then start to draft your defence by reading recent gallstone court case threads and formulate your own

did they say that the claimant will use the POC within the next 14 days ?

or alternatively have no POC been given or very sparse ?

new protocols came in 18 days ago for an LBC or an MCOL , so you should receive paperwork detailing more info about the claim

ps , this link leads to an MCOL claim

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=dneiw0&s=9#.WefftIhrxPY

definitely NOT a CCJ , its not even been seen by a judge yet , never mind ruled upon

Moneymike

Redx wrote: »

did they say that the claimant will use the POC within the next 14 days ?

or alternatively have no POC been given or very sparse ?

new protocols came in 18 days ago for an LBC or an MCOL , so you should receive paperwork detailing more info about the claim

I guess POC stands for Particulars of Claim? It says on the reverse of the page that I must respond within 14 days of the day of service (or particulars of claim if served separately)

How do I know if I have the Particulars of Claim?

Redx

either they sent them or they didnt

look up the recent changes on protocols that umkomaas posts daily on here

if they havent sent them and you only have whats on that court letter you posted , then you need to copy a recent defence that contains those protocol details

if they said the POC will be sent by the claimant within the 14 days then you are waiting for them

you can do the AOS online but need to start on your draft defence anyway

if in doubt , put them in as a defence point for now

Coupon-mad

I have just received a CCJ

No, you didn't.

Please read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread and no shrieking when DQ form arrives after you have defended it, and please don't ask what that is...please read the NEWBIES thread or we cannot keep up with posts.

Moneymike

I have now filed the AOS online I was just wondering if the claim was made against me on the 13th October does that mean I have till the 15th Nov to file the defence? Which calculates for the 5 added for service dates, 14 days to acknowledge, further 14 from aos total of 33 days?

Moneymike

This is my first draft of my defense could you critique this and let me know if I need to make any changes or add anthing to boost my success. Also, if the issue date of this claim was the 13th October does that mean I have till the 15th Nov to file the defence?

1. No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.

2. I want to write something about having a Blue badge for my son but it wasn’t on displayed at the time of this parking charge. The PPC does have photos of my dashboard showing no blue badge. I would also want to point out that the ticket issue from the PPC was very abusive and was taking unnecessary pictures of me whist trying to have a discussion with the ticket issuer.

3. This is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors in their claim. The Particulars are not clear and concise, so I have had to cover all eventualities in defending a 'cut & paste' claim. This has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.

4. As an unrepresented consumer I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant's case.

5. This claim merely states: “parking charges for breaching the terms of parking on the land at xxxxxx" with an unsubstantiated claim of "£356.01 for parking charges / damages and indemnity costs if applicable” which does not adequately describe the basis on which the claim is brought. For example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'. Nor are any clear times or coherent grounds for any lawful claim particularised, nor were any details provided to evidence any contract created nor any copy of this contract, nor explanation for the vague description 'parking charges / damages and indemnity costs if applicable'.


6. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.


7. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.


8. I suggest that parking companies using the small claims court as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.


9. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.


10. The alleged debt as vaguely described in the claim amounts to unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.


11. The claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case') yet ParkingEye would not have been able to recover any sum at all without 'agreement on the charge'. In the Beavis case, the £85 charge was held to be allowable to act as a disincentive in that case only, based upon very specific and unique facts in a 'complex' case involving the existence of a specific legitimate interest from the landowners regarding turnover of parking spaces and very clear, brief and prominent signs. It was held at the Court of Appeal that a parking charge sum of £135 would fail the penalty rule. The authority for this is 'Parkingeye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1338 (17 October 2012)'.


12. Notwithstanding that the Claimant claims no right to pursue the Defendant as the registered keeper under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if it cannot identify the driver. This distinguishes the case from Elliott vs Loake(1982) in which there was irrefutable evidence of the drivers identity. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not been complied with and the claimant may not quote reasonable assumption. PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, "There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort"(2015).


13. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court. Furthermore, as in the case PCM v Bull there is no evidence to support additional costs having been incurred by the claimant. The lack of diligence in this claim demonstrates admirably that at best a ‘copy and paste' is the closest a human, legally trained or not, came to the information transmitted from claimant to the Money Claims Online system. There are no real costs and POFA prevents claims exceeding the sum on the original parking notice.


14. It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.


15. Should the claim be for breach of contract, and it remains unclear on this point, then the defendant denies there is or was any contract implied or otherwise. As in the case PCM v Bull, the signs at the location are forbidding and serve as a notice of absolute prohibition against parking at any time and cannot constitute a contract.


16. Should the claim be for trespass, and it remains unclear on this point, there is no evidence to support that the claimant has any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass.

17. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.


18. I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

19. I put the Claimant to strict proof that it issued a compliant notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, no keeper liability can apply, due to this Claimant's PCN not complying with Schedule 4.

KeithP

Are you still waiting for the Particulars of Claim?
Please clarify.