CC claim form athens security help please!

roogoose

Marktheshark wrote: »

Accepting part of the claim will lose outright.
You either accept the terms of the contract or you do not.

You admit NOTHING, you make them prove everything and you use your payment slip to prove their claim is false as you did not arrive until several hours after they claimed.

Agreeing with them and making it easy for them will lose.

Ok got it, thank you!!

bod1467

If making such an offer then you'd need to be very careful that doing so doesn't identify the driver in any way. If you're using their non-POFA-compliant NTK as part of your defence then why would a keeper (who has no liability) make such an offer? (That may be how a judge might see it ... infer that the keeper was the driver).

Coupon-mad

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Would love to see the contract for this one. Make sure you ask for it in your defence.

Earlier contracts have no allowance for AS to take action in their own name so put them to strict proof the Garden Charity has permitted this. Or ask the charity directly. Unless there is a clear answer from them plus a copy of the contract, introduce their reply to show vagueness.

email : gardenscharities@yahoo.co.uk

phone : 07881 521730 or 01872 571605

write: The Gardener's Room, Boscawen Rd, Perranporth TR6 0EP

IamEmanresu does have insight into these cases, so take heed of his advice.

roogoose

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Would love to see the contract for this one. Make sure you ask for it in your defence.

Earlier contracts have no allowance for AS to take action in their own name so put them to strict proof the Garden Charity has permitted this. Or ask the charity directly. Unless there is a clear answer from them plus a copy of the contract, introduce their reply to show vagueness.

email : gardenscharities@yahoo.co.uk

phone : 07881 521730 or 01872 571605

write: The Gardener's Room, Boscawen Rd, Perranporth TR6 0EP

Just phone gardens charities who say that AS do have a contract with them and with the council? that means they are able to enforce parking tickets. Unable to provide me with the contract for commercial reasons.

bod1467

"Enforce" is not the same as "take action in their own name".

pugger

HO87 wrote: »

Have you had other dealings with them? Any other insights you can provide?

Tanya (the secretary) is totally on AS's side. She will always defend them no matter what.

The charity won't even step in if someones ticket has blown over. They have had requests numerous times to issue sticky tickets but to no avail.

The last POPLA appeal against AS (before they jumped to the IPC) was won on no landowner authority. Kev didn't send the contract to POPLA. According to Tanya he tried to but they wouldn't accept it!

roogoose

Ok everyone, here is my first draft, please send me as much criticism and advice as possible, all very much appreciated. Note I haven't put anything about the signage as not sure I can fault it based of IPC CoP which is much less strict than BPA.

Draft Defence

I am XXXX of XXXXXX defendant in this matter.

The claim is denied in its entirety except where explicitly admitted here. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all.

Preliminary Matters:

The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. It does not include sufficient information to be considered a fair exchange of information.




1. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A)

2. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

On the basis of the above, I invite the court strike out the claim.


In further support of there being a want of cause of action:

1. The notice to keeper fails to meet the terms and conditions as described in the Protection of Freedoms Acts 2012 and therefore as keeper I cannot be liable.
2. The claimaint has no locus standi to bring this to case. It is believed that the Claimant has no standing to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. The claimant has failed to establish their legal right to bring a claim either as the landholder or the agent of the landholder. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Athens Securiy Services.
3. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 applies
i. The claimants charges are unlawful as they breach the terms in
the Consumer Rights Act 2015 specifically section 62(1) Schedule 2.

4. The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case') yet such an assertion is not supported by any similarity in the location nor circumstances. The car park in question is a paid car park rather than a free car park and therefore the cases cannot be compared.

5. Legal Representative Costs
The claim includes a sum of £50, described as ‘Legal Representatives costs’.
The claimant uses Gladstones solicitors to represent them legally. The claimant has not recieved any breakdown of the solicitors costs and the only correspondence recived from them is an automated letter with no name or signature identical to ones easily found on the internet.

Since these are fully automated, no intervention is required by a solicitor, and the Claimant is put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred. The Claimant cannot rely on Nossen’s Letter Patent (1969) to justify the charge, as this is part of their everyday routine, and no ‘expert services’ are involved.

Additionally, as this is already included as part of the costs of the claimant, factored into the £100 parking charge, this is essentially double charging.

6. With the above information in mind I invite the court to strike out the claim for lack of cause to action in the particulars of claim and no prospects of successs.

Coupon-mad

You should be also contesting the figure made up out of thin air for the £153.45 sum, which includes yet another £50 which cannot be pursued (not just the legal costs of £50).

I can't see a point that the sum of the parking charge itself is not clearly displayed in large lettering on the signs and/or at the P&D machine on the tariff board, so the driver was not given 'adequate notice' of the £100 charge, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and contrary to the POFA schedule 4. Compared with the signs in the Beavis case, the £100 was a hidden term and therefore unrecoverable. The driver was unaware of any risk of paying any sum at all except the advertised tariffs in large letters, which was paid in good faith.

I can't see a point that the operator failed to allow reasonable grace periods as per the IPC CoP, allowing time before paying, to arrive, park, get kids out, lock the car, go over and read the signs, such as they were, and pay a tariff. Plus another grace period after expiry of paid-for time.

Some more stuff here you could use and adapt, maybe, from this defence to another Gladstones claim (is yours Gladstones?):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5517061

Was the 22 mins all AFTER expiry?

roogoose

Also, in terms of Beavis case, I have just been reading through the Parking Eye vs Cargius case where Beavis did not apply because it was a pay and display car park and parking eye got their revenue from the tickets, and therefore their revenue was not just from fines.
I was hoping I could apply this to my case, but it says that all the money from pay and display tickets goes to the Gardens Charities.
Does anyone else have any ideas about how I can differentiate it from Beavis? Thanks!

Coupon-mad

The above linked example might help show you how to distinguish your case from the Beavis case. Or other defences on here if you search 'defence Gladstones'.

Don't forget to add the points I mentioned above which appear to be missing so far from your draft.