CC claim form athens security help please!

roogoose

HO87 wrote: »

Do we have a sample of the sign showing all the wording?

Hi HO87 I couldn't upload the image here but it'a attached to my post here on legal beagles:

legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?84680-CC-Claim-Form-for-PCN&p=673471#post673471[/url]

Let me know what you think!
Thanks!

Coupon-mad

Not seeing the £100 displayed as a tariff...although that thumbnail is too small to see the terms below.

roogoose

Better image here:

In terms of it being a windscreen PCN how does that affect your advice Coupon-mad?

Thanks again for all the help

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f341/racoon300/IMG_2032_zps8rc2vaat.jpg

roogoose

^^^ I guess that means I can't use the argument of loading and leaving as the fact a windscreen PCN was issued means the car was stationary at the time?
Correct me if I'm wrong! and if not, if you have any other ideas re arguing the grace period that would be very much appreciated !

roogoose

Second defence draft, again any criticisms/advice much appreciated, deadline is tomorrow so the sooner the better please, thanks so much again for your all your help guys, it really is appreciated!

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.


1. 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.

2. 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)

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

The claimant has produced a figure of £150 out of thin air. There has been no breakdown of costs to explain how they have come to this figure. There was also no warning or explanation of why an extra £50 was added onto the initial charge of £100. Furthermore the particulars of claim do not explain what this charge is for.


7. 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.

7a. The car park in question is a paid car park rather than a free car park as in the Beavis case and therefore the cases cannot be compared.

7b. Furthermore there is no legitimate interest in enforcing a charge as this is a public beach car park not allocated to any retail stores.

7c. The driver had paid to be in the car park and whereby paying the vehicle is fully entitled to be there.


8.The signage at the car park has no indication of a grace period given to the user to leave nor does it state the £100 charge can apply to undefined 'overstays'?

9. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added solicitors fees 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 any event.
of successs.

10. In view of the above points the defendant would to invite the court to strike out the claim on the grounds of no want of cause nor prospect of success..

11.The defendant believes all statements in this defence to be true.

Coupon-mad

Point #6 and #9 look like they should be amalgamated into one because 'thin air' is stated twice about similar added fees.

Do not have a question mark in a defence, and be more assertive, so change:

8.The signage at the car park has no indication of a grace period given to the user to leave nor does it state the £100 charge can apply to undefined 'overstays'?

to this:

8.The signage at the car park has no indication of any grace period given to the user to leave nor does it state the £100 charge can apply to undefined 'overstays'. The claimant is put to strict proof of any grace period as defined and agreed with the landowner (both the period before paying and the grace period before leaving) and to set out in evidence, how this complies with their Code of Practice.

You appear to have nothing about the parking charge on the signs not being in 'large lettering' like the £85 charge was in the Beavis case. That could be 7d.

And you appear to have no general point stating something about the signs and I would have something! You could say that it is accepted and not under dispute, that the driver saw the tariff board and paid to park. However, it is asserted that the lower part of the sign with £100 in small print was obscured by the queue of people paying to park and that nowhere else in the location was the £100 stated in large lettering. So there was no agreement on the £100 charge, only on the tariff itself. And it is asserted that the entrance signs did not meet the Code of Practice and that the sparse and sporadically-placed signs do not meet the high bar set by the Beavis case signage and certainly failed to meet Lord Denning's 'red hand rule' in terms of transparency of an onerous term (e.g. an escalated 'charge' out of all proportion to the tariff).

Also, does their photo evidence prove that the P&D ticket had expired, is there a very clear close-up? If not, then state that there is no evidence that the P&D ticket had expired. As registered keeper, you require strict proof of any contravention and timings.

You can also argue that the claimant has not evidenced that the time on the hand-held camera used by the ticketer, was in any way synchronised to the timer on the P&D machine. You put this claimant to strict proof that the employee synchronised their camera to the P&D machine timer on arrival, otherwise the photos are no evidence that the P&D ticket had actually expired, merely that the camera was set to a certain time. It is asserted that this could have been a different time than the P&D machine was displaying. As the private parking industry has been exposed as (and admitted to) being guilty of altering timings and photo evidence to mock up 'overstays' (e.g. UKPC being banned by the DVLA temporarily last year for doctoring photos just like this one) this is a valid concern for any defendant.

roogoose

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Point #6 and #9 look like they should be amalgamated into one because 'thin air' is stated twice about similar added fees.

You appear to have nothing about the parking charge on the signs not being in 'large lettering' like the £85 charge was in the Beavis case. That could be 7d.

Thanks noted, i will add these in along with a bit about the size of the lettering.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Also, does their photo evidence prove that the P&D ticket had expired, is there a very clear close-up? If not, then state that there is no evidence that the P&D ticket had expired. As registered keeper, you require strict proof of any contravention and timings.

I have not been given any photo evidence. To be fair I have not asked for it, (I don't seem to be very good at asking for the information!).

Will this be to be advantage or disadvantage?

Coupon-mad

Just say that you have not been furnished with any evidence that the P&D ticket had expired when compared to the clock on the P&D machine which printed the ticket. As registered keeper, you require strict proof of any contravention and timings.

Remember, you can say what you want and it remains up to the claimant to prove their case. You set up the banana skins and you only need them to slip up on one.

roogoose

Thank you so much Coupon-mad, i really do appreciate your help.

roogoose

roogoose wrote: »

3. 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.

I took this from another defence thinking it related to gladstones, but now can't find the defence I took it from, can anyone confirm that this information is correct and related to glad stones? THank you!