Fine sent to a previous address what to do

Redx

there is nothing wrong in dealing with this on her behalf, as long as she reads the paperwork etc and actually sends it in or puts it in online, in her name , if SHE is the one being taken to court under the MCOL

the online MCOL site details the procedures for MCOL , plus the bargepole post also helps in this regard

she is not writing a statement if she is being taken to court, she writes a "holding defence" because she is "defending" the court claim made against her

a witness may write a statement , but this is an initial skeleton defence where the bullet points in her defence are raised and submitted, these will be expanded on later down the line if it goes to a full hearing (if the PPC dont back off and pay for it to go further)

study the MCOL procedures if you want to look at the progression

study recent ongoing 2016 court cases to see how it progresses

read the parking prankster court guide to see how this progresses

its all about research , which you can do on her behalf, but if this goes to a court hearing in front of a judge, she may well be speaking for herself and you may not be allowed to speak

so the fact you "normally deal with various matters" wont cut it in the legal world , sorry

as an adult , she has to defend this , even if you do all the backroom stuff

if I were you I would go back through this thread and change the word I , as in "I just received a letter" , to either , "my friend" or "a relative" or some other suitable wording because its becoming clear that YOU have received nothing as yet

Coupon-mad

What happens when is in Bargepole's post under 'Small claim?' in the NEWBIES thread. Tells you what paperwork arrives & how to complete it. If it does go to a hearing, well she may have seen Judge Rinder on TV? It would likely be a more formal meeting than that but in some ways similar because it's only a company saying 'you owe us money' and the defendant (your wife) saying why she isn't liable/there was no contract and no contravention of parking terms.

I can't see this one going to a hearing, I think (same as we said to you) that she - or you but in her name, obviously, which is what you should have done - just needs to rattle PE's cage reminding them that the driver was charging the Eco car, not parked in the car park and clearly their cameras are in the wrong place (cite the case won last week).

Nothing has changed, all it means is she has to cage rattle and the defence has to have her name on the bottom, if she can't get PE to withdraw by robust emails. I think she can.

You've lost a week by replying when it's not your claim, which is a shame because now is the time to make PE see this isn't going to be one they can win. Luckily, you haven't written the defence and put your name on it like some lady did the other month 'for' her son who was on holiday(!), as if a claim is able to be 'passed onto someone else' by the named defendant, like pass the parcel (clearly not). A defendant can't be swapped for someone else who is more up for the fight (although if you do have to go to a hearing you can act as her lay representative so that you speak on her behalf instead of your wife speaking...but she MUST attend too).

Your wife should not panic. I can't see this one going to a hearing but if it does, she must turn up (but you both can).

I hope the email she sent them was robust like the one you sent?

Was it made clear that she is the registered keeper and replying to the same email thread? Are they going to know they are now talking to the keeper and what's been said before...i.e. please tell us she did refer to (or forward underneath her email) the earlier email trail, where they asked for her...not just started a new email that they won't pick up till next week.

cts_casemod

Thank you both for clarifying this.

Yes, I had the notion for court or defense purposes she would have to do it herself but I assumed (wrongly) that I could act in her defense to explain the situation, after all I was there when the events happened.

Guess this will serve as a lesson for future events.

Redx

cts_casemod wrote: »

I would as such ask for the CCJ to be withdrawn

there is no CCJ to be withdrawn, this hasnt even gone to court yet , she hasnt lost , she hasnt failed to pay the judgment as there hasnt been one , there is no CCJ

the J in CCJ is Judgment , which hasnt happened

there is an MCOL (Money Claim On Line)

I suggest you get to grips with all this terminology on the civil court claim , its been ongoing since 1973 even though changes may have been made to modernise it via the internet)

Coupon-mad

A CCJ hasn't been issued at all. A CCJ is a judgment after losing at court. Trouble is, that sort of thing and responding in the name of a third party (you) just tells PE that you don't know what you are doing (sorry, but they will seize on perceived weakness). To be clear, I am NOT saying to pay or give up and NOT saying you have no case. You are just not putting it across assertively enough to get this kicked into touch.

That email is far too polite so unless you can both become more assertive with a complaint I think you will need to start working on your wife's defence bullet points as you don't have long do you?

Your email was more robust but the point should have been made that they have 'no cause of action' and the signs in the charging area do not communicate the contractual terms they appear to be relying upon. Quote the case they lost last week, these emails should be really assertive about withdrawing the claim and them having no cause of action, not gentle requests.

Get angry, this firm is trying to SUE your wife because you charged you car at a Services...

cts_casemod

I think its really best to concentrate on defense bullet points at this stage we are both trying to get into terms with the terminology, but as pointed it is really not happening, which is frustrating.

I was thinking on something along the lines:

I have recently been notified of a court order issued by PE in regards to a PCN issued last year for which I have not received any notifications. It is in my belief the alleged contravention refers to the 8th of September last year when I used the services to charge my vehicle, registration no...., using the Ecotricity charging points.

Such contravention did not happen. According to the government guidelines at all types of site, where a charge is to be levied for parking beyond the mandatory two free hours, the charging regime must be clearly displayed within both the parking areas and the amenity building. Drivers must at all times be afforded the opportunity to pay the charge on the site, before leaving and without the necessity to use a mobile phone. Cash payments must be accepted.''

The signage on the site in question does not comply with the requirements above, failing to communicate the contractual terms being relied on, therefore no contract has been formed with driver(s) to pay £100, or any additional fee charged thereafter, time stamped evidence is available that confirms the signs in situ at the time the alleged contravention occurred, and the vehicle making use of said designated bays.

I remember a similar case, claim Claim C4FC524M was ruled out in favor of the driver given the assumption that the 2 hours are to park and do not account other time spent inside the service area for other purposes, given the bad positioning of the ANPR cameras at the entrance of the services rather than the car park.

Having the above into consideration, parking Eye has no cause of action and should, with immediate effect, withdrawn any charges against the vehicle keeper

bod1467

YOU HAVEN'T RECEIVED A COURT ORDER!!!!!!!!!!! When is that going to sink in? All you've received is a court CLAIM!

Coupon-mad

The above is not a defence, it's a story of what happened. That's like a weak 'appeal'. Your wife's defence needs to start by addressing what the 'Particulars of Claim' says and answer each point, denying liability. Read this first:

http://www.bmpa.eu/static_defense_statement.php

Depending on what the Particulars say, here are some suggested points of defence BUT WHAT DATE WAS ON THE PAPERS?:



The claim is denied in its entirety. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

1. It is denied that I was the driver, however, it is admitted that I am the registered keeper of VRN .......

2. The alleged 'overstay' or failure to pay any on-site tariff or indeed 'entering and leaving the car park' is denied and it is denied that the driver agreed to any parking contract, nor could they be held to be subject to one.

3. Government Policy set out in DfT circular 01/2008 (April 2008) for Roadside Services includes mandatory requirements allowing two hours rest when actually parked in the car park: ''Free parking for up to 2 hours. Subsequent payment for parking must be possible as an on-site cash transaction''.

4. The vehicle was not in the car park. It was in the petrol station service facility, being charged {explain briefly}.

5. The Claimant has shown no evidence that VRN ........ was actually parked in the car park at {Services name}. Since the 'ParkingEye v Beavis' decision, County Courts have continued to find based on particular facts relating to a parking charges case. The most recent decision in the public domain relating to a case of ParkingEye at Motorway Services is 'ParkingEye vs Mrs Janice Rowan, C4FC524M at Banbury on 21/06/2016' which supports my defence.

6. The signs at the charging area differ from the car park 'contract' and terms were ambiguous and unclear. It was not communicated to a person charging a vehicle in the petrol station that there was any obligation or any possibility of paying cash to 'park' longer than 2 hours. This charging point is not a 'parking' area; indeed parking there is prohibited and no such contract is offered. The adjacent sign was incapable of forming a contract to pay £100 after two hours and at no point did the driver see a sign which unambiguously informed him that £100 (or any tariff) could apply to drivers only using the petrol station and not 'parking'.

7. The arrangements with Welcome Break - the landowner - are designed to enforce payment of a tariff after free parking of two hours, in the car park. Any contract ParkingEye have as agent of the landowner does not allow penalising motorists who are using the petrol station facilities and are not parked in the car park.

8. It is believed that any contract ParkingEye have includes a schedule which 'always requires the prior authority of Welcome Break' before taking legal action. It is suggested this authority cannot exist in this case so this is the wrong claimant.

9. It is my contention that the ANPR cameras, being placed at the periphery of the entire site, wrongly catch drivers using the petrol station facility, rather than just timing the use of the car park in accordance with the intentions of clear Government Policy.

10. The £100 charge is not saved from the 'penalty rule' by the ParkingEye v Beavis case, which was about a site requiring turnover of retail parking bays and where no set tariff applied after the first two hours. Here, a £5 tariff appears to have been available, albeit unknown to the driver and not relevant if not parked. £100 is a sum out of all proportion to the tariff that (had a driver seen such terms) could have been paid in cash.

11. The ParkingEye v Beavis case is binding authority and supports my defence in terms of the findings of the Judges at the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. Consumer contract transactions with set payments due (e.g. tariffs) were held to be 'entirely different' from the case under consideration and it was held that in other cases, Lord Dunedin's four tests would only rarely be insufficient to decide whether another charge, turning on different facts, is an unrecoverable penalty.

12. I am not liable under the applicable 'keeper liability' law. It is denied that ParkingEye have complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) Schedule 4, in terms of:

(a) the Notice to Keeper mandatory service deadline/wording. I received no such document and was not presented with any opportunity to appeal.

(b) the mandatory requirement for 'adequate notice' of the terms and the parking charge itself. There was no adequate notice of parking terms or any obligation which could be reasonably interpreted as a requirement to leave or pay a tariff (or risk a penalty) after two hours of charging an Eco vehicle in the petrol station.

(c) the basic requirement for a 'relevant contract' and a 'relevant obligation' neither of which exist in this case.

13. If it is held that the vehicle was unauthorised after two hours then there is no licence/contract beyond that time without tariff payment and this could at the most, be a matter of alleged trespass. The ParkingEye v Beavis case is clear in respect of the tort of trespass: ParkingEye could not recover a charge in such circumstances and the charge in that unique case was only saved due to the specific arrangements and signs/licence/contract applicable in that car park.

14. This is a serial litigant, issuing duplicate template claim forms from an administrative centre where no specific work - and certainly no legal work - per case is involved. It is contended that the claimant's in-house solicitor is salaried and cannot possibly 'charge' £50 costs per case, thereby earning millions from the c30,000 very similar claim forms issued per annum.

15. In any case, the POFA disallows recovery of any sum from a registered keeper except - at the most - the sum on any Notice to Keeper (which was never served in this case).

In view of the fact that the car did not park, nor 'enter and leave the car park' nor overstay nor fail to pay a tariff, as defined in the Claimant's particulars - and nor was the required documentation served and nor was there any contract agreed - I ask the court to Strike out the claim as having no basis or likelihood of success.

I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.

cts_casemod

The particulars of the claim state:

Claim for moneys outstanding from the defendant, as a registered keeper, in relation to a parking charge issued 15/09/15...

This differs from the day I have the record, are penalty charges issued a few days later?

...for parking in private land in breach of the terms and conditions (the contract)

Parking Eye APNR system.... captured vehicle entering and leaving the car park without a valid paid parking ticket.

The signage clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park states this is private land managed by PE LTD and parking tariffs apply after a free stay period along with other T's & C's by which those who park on site agree to be bound. In accordance with the T'c & C's set out on the signage the parking charge became payable. Notice under the protection of freedoms act 2012 has been given under sch 4 making the keeper liable. This reference is in reference to Parking charge(s) ...

Let me see which terms are more applicable to such and Ill post something shortly

Coupon-mad

Yes parking charges are sent a few days later.

Let me see which terms are more applicable to such and Ill post something shortly

I think I've covered most bases in the defence I drafted for you above. No surprises in those standard Particulars and I've already mentioned the car was not parked in the car park nor seen 'entering and leaving the car park'.

What date is on the court papers? Your wife doesn't have long to put this defence online on MCOL.