Ace Security Services

bigsej

oh and im guessing its too late for a part 18 request?

bigsej

Sorry to flood with questions but here are some more...

Should i mention anything about the fact that the reason for the charges are no vehicle tax even though its on a private road?

Should i mention anything abut the permit being a few years out of date and the Ace not renewing them to highlight their lack of professionalism?

Is it worth mentioning the fact that the car was damaged and awaiting collection by repair shop?

bigsej

Here is what i have so far, the point in bold is in relation to a different claimant so im guessing i can remove it. Is there anything else I am missing or could add to strengthen my defence. it seems very limited at the moment. Im hoping to finalise and submit tomorrow as Wednesday is day 28!

1) It is admitted that the defendant, Mr XXXXXX XXXXX, DOB XXXXXX, residing at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle, though the claimant cannot provide evidence that the defendant was the actual driver on the dates in question.

2) It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner, XXXXXXXX, PACE RECOVERY & STORAGE LIMITED cannot overrule the elements of the lease or introduce them subsequently. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from XXXXXXXXX to PACE RECOVERY & STORAGE LIMITED

3) PACE RECOVERY & STORAGE LIMITED are not the lawful occupier of the land.
(i) a contract is absent with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus standi to bring this case

4) The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
(i) as the Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking on the site in question;
(ii) the amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable;
(iii) the penalty bears no relation to the circumstances because it remains the same no matter whether a motorist overstays by ten seconds or ten years; and
(iiii) the clause is specifically expressed to be a parking charge on the Claimant's signs.

5) If the driver happened to see the signage (if any were present) on each occasion, signs are located at a distance in pale, unlit and placed so high creating an illegible condition to read the terms and conditions required to enter a contract. The doctrine of contra proferentem applies and the interpretation that most favours a consumer must prevail; that being that the driver(s) did not see or accept the sum the claimant says they did.

6) The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not been complied with. The registered keeper is unaware of 2 PCNs and was not the driver, as such the keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of £100 charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time/with mandatory wording.

7) The POFA restricts liability to the sum of the parking charge itself and the BPA Code of Practice has a ceiling of £100 which at the time, made it a condition that any charge issued must be based upon a GPEOL, the amounts claimed are excessive and unconscionable. It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs - and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add an extra £60 to each PCN and that those sums formed part of the contract in the first instance.

8) The claimant’s charges are unlawful addressing the imbalance of power leaving the driver/s at a disadvantage thus the defendant denies entering a contract. If a breach of contract is identified by the court then the implications are marginal, as the driver followed majority of instruction.

10) It is believed that this Claimant has not adhered to the BPA Code of Practice and is put to strict proof of full compliance. This Claimant has been exposed in the national press - and was recently investigated by the BPA - for falsifying photo evidence, which was admitted by the Claimant. It is submitted that this is not a parking company which complies with the strict rules of their Trade Body, which were held as a vital regulatory feature in ParkingEye v Beavis.

9) This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes and PACE RECOVERY & STORAGE LIMITED have not shown any valid 'legitimate interest' allowing them the unusual right to pursue anything more than a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

10) The vehicle had a permit which was acknowledged and supplied by PACE RECOVERY & STORAGE LIMITED. The permit was clearly displayed in the vehicle and confirms that the vehicle was entitled to a parking space, if the driver/s on each occasion were considered to be trespassers then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant. As the Supreme Court in the Beavis case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

11) The legal costs are not justified additionally it would have been factored within the additional £60 charge thus claiming again would be considered double charging creating financial gain.

The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.

Statement of Truth:
I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Carthesis

First question - are this PPC members of the BPA or the IPC? Makes a difference to your point about them adhering to the Code of Practice.

About the permit, it's a shame you don't have a previous letter to Ace requesting a new, in-date permit.

I'll leave further comment to people more versed in the County Court process than I am for fear of giving you duff advice.

bigsej

First question - are this PPC members of the BPA or the IPC? Makes a difference to your point about them adhering to the Code of Practice.

I just checked the IPC website and Pace REcovery & Storage Limited (T/A Ace Security Services) are listed as an accredited operator scheme member. I'm guessing this deems point no. 10 of my defence irrelevant. is there any alternative for this point that is relevant for claimants who are IPC members as opposed to BPA?

bigsej

Anyone?! PLEASE! deadline day!

bigsej

Started to panic a little now...

Carthesis

It doesn't make it irrelevant - you just need to make sure you're referencing the right ATA and COP.

I note that you've got TWO Point 10s though.... and one of them is between 8 and 9...

bigsej

The point 10 between 8 and 9 is from the defence template I am using and I'm guessing it doesn't apply to my case. I will be removing this unless anyone suggests otherwise.

As for quoting the correct ATA and COP (not sure what they mean) do you know which are the correct ones to quote?

Thanks for your help in my hour of desperation!

bigsej

So it is point 7 and point 10 (in between 8 and 9) that I need clarification on and any additional points that I need to add before I can submit my defence.