Please help, CCJ claim form issued.

Redx

no , sorry , that is more like the type of GAN letters you would send to BW LEGAL as an LBC reply , before a court claim (so nothing like a holding defence)

a holding defence will address the court and have the bullet points you are defending on , with a statement of truth at the end

there are plenty on here and on pepipoo from this year, recent ones are the ones you want to crib from when drafting this skeleton defence

try reading over twenty of any recent court threads to get the gist

Coupon-mad

That is not a court defence. You are reading BW Legal threads which are NOT yet at court papers stage! ONLY read court paper threads showing defences.

Try searching 'Excel defence' on here or look on pepipoo forum.

Gillan.99

As advised I have took some more time and read more recent threads and this is where I am with my holding defense, these are genuine and my honest reasons for why I believe I should not have to pay the PCN.

---

In reply to PCN number: ############
Claim number:###########

My reasons for disputing the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form are as follows:
1.The alleged parking offense on ##/##/#### issued under an alleged contract and the driver has not been identified. On the dates stated of the alleged parking offence I was working offshore so I can not held responsible for the alleged offense, there is three named drivers on my policy plus myself so I should not be held responsible for the debt.
2. I have yet to receive any evidence to prove my vehicle was illegally parked.
3. Since receiving letters from the claimant I have discussed with the named drivers on my policy and none of them recall a “fine” being issued.
4. The letters received state an amount for a parking charge which to my knowledge is not a fine / penalty.
5. Are the claimants “vehicle control services limited” governed by the BPA or IPC?
6. Only approved operator scheme members can get DVLA data, can the claimant advise how they unlawfully gained my details?
7. Since receiving your letters in have gone to the car park in question and it appears to be closed down and no signage etc in place, can the claimant provide evidence that there were sufficient signage in place at the time of the alleged offense?
Yours faithfully,
####### ########

Redx

5 and 6 are questions, not defence points , and you would know which AOS they were in by the date of the incident and checking the date of their IPC membership

the yours faithfully is a letter addition, not a defence addition

no statement confirming you are the keeper at the start of the defence

no statement of truth at the bottom (instead of yours faithfull)

no mention of the laws you are going to rely on in your defence

your car was or wasnt parked "illegally" , as there are no laws governing the parking on private car parks , illegal implies breaking a criminal law , not a civil dispute on private land

I could go on , but I wont

are you positive you have read twenty holding defences from here and pepipoo covering the last 6 months or so of 2016 ?

I think not , sorry to say

but its better than your BW LEGAL letter previously posted

please, keep trying

to start you off , you should have found the following ongoing thread and read it and cribbed from it, along with many others posted recently

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5478608

now compare post #19 to what you have posted so far, tell me if there are any similarities ?

Gillan.99

Ok thanks, well here we go again, here is my attempt number 3 at my holding defense, fingers crossed you guys think this one is acceptable! ha, that's again , and as always any advice would be great :-)

---

To whom it may concern,


I contact you in regards to the alleged parking violation: PCN number: ############


To the above mentioned County Court Claim.





It is admitted that Defendant (MY NAME) is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.





However it is denied that the Claimant (Vehicle control services limited) has authority to bring this claim on the following grounds:-





1. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with. The registered keeper has not been proven as the driver, as such the keeper can only be held liable if the claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements. The vehicle in question has three named drivers on the insurance policy plus the registered keeper.





2. The proper claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Vehicle Control Services Ltd.





3. Vehicle Control Services Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land.


(i) Vehicle Control Services Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land.


(ii) absent a contract 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 right to bring action regarding this claim.





4. The signage on the site in question was unclear and not prominent on site/around the areas in question, so no contract has been formed with driver(s) to pay £100, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.





5. I have visited the site of the car park in question and it appears to be closed down and no signage in place, If the contract has been conveyed by the use of signage on site, please provide copies of the signs on which you rely and confirm these are the signs in situ on the date of the event. Please also provide the date these signs were installed, for example, a works schedule, maintenance record or invoice for the work.





6. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.





7. As 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 £104 legal representative costs + interest to the PCN and that those sums formed part of the contract in the first instance..





8. The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss for the following reasons:


a) The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question


b) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.





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





9. In addition the claimant has yet to respond to part 18 Request written and sent by the defendant and delivered to BW Legal on the XX/XX/2016,





10. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.





If you believe the claimant has a cause of action, I will take advice and will respond.





Yours,


MY NAME.

bod1467

Tip for the future ... copy and paste your text into Notepad, then copy from Notepad and paste into the forum. That way all the formatting issues will go away and the forum posts will be properly readable.

Gillan.99

Ok thanks, well here we go again, here is my attempt number 3 at my holding defense, fingers crossed you guys think this one is acceptable! ha, that's again , and as always any advice would be great :-)

---

To whom it may concern,


I contact you in regards to the alleged parking violation: PCN number: ############


To the above mentioned County Court Claim.





It is admitted that Defendant (MY NAME) is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.





However it is denied that the Claimant (Vehicle control services limited) has authority to bring this claim on the following grounds:-





1. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with. The registered keeper has not been proven as the driver, as such the keeper can only be held liable if the claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements. The vehicle in question has three named drivers on the insurance policy plus the registered keeper.





2. The proper claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Vehicle Control Services Ltd.





3. Vehicle Control Services Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land.


(i) Vehicle Control Services Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land.


(ii) absent a contract 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 right to bring action regarding this claim.





4. The signage on the site in question was unclear and not prominent on site/around the areas in question, so no contract has been formed with driver(s) to pay £100, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.





5. I have visited the site of the car park in question and it appears to be closed down and no signage in place, If the contract has been conveyed by the use of signage on site, please provide copies of the signs on which you rely and confirm these are the signs in situ on the date of the event. Please also provide the date these signs were installed, for example, a works schedule, maintenance record or invoice for the work.





6. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.





7. As 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 £104 legal representative costs + interest to the PCN and that those sums formed part of the contract in the first instance..





8. The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss for the following reasons:


a) The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question


b) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.





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





9. In addition the claimant has yet to respond to part 18 Request written and sent by the defendant and delivered to BW Legal on the XX/XX/2016,





10. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.





If you believe the claimant has a cause of action, I will take advice and will respond.





Yours,


MY NAME

bod1467

Gillan.99 wrote: »

If you believe the claimant has a cause of action, I will take advice and will respond.

That's irrelevant in respect of a defence. For a Part 18 riposte, yes - for a court defence ...... ?

Redx

and the last point should be a statement of truth instead

parkingwoes_2

Quick points:

Don't start a defence off with "To whom it may concern"

Add at the start - wording to the effect that

' I deny any liability to the claimant for this sum or any amount'

Point 5 - needs rewording. - Don't ask them to prove their case by providing evidence of signage !

Point 7 - VCS are members of the IPC for the purposes of AOS membership