Claim form advice?

cookie_archie

I'm new to this forum and notice lots of help is given and links to other chats which I'm trying to understand the jargon and abbreviations used! However I'm driving myself in sane and hoping somebody kind enough on here will answer my question!
To cut a long story short I've now received a letter from Northampton county court asking me to pay a car park fine which for the last year I have ignored all correspondence.
So do I fill in the form first ticking the box saying I'm not paying anything? do I then fill in the MCOl AOS on line? Then do I do this at the same time or wait for some correspondence from the court to go ahead with this? When I fill this in is this my defence which they ask for my legal reasons as to why I'm not paying? Do I send this as a paper copy or do I use the MCOL where there is a page to send this?
My reasons for not paying are I don't know who was driving but I'm the registered keeper. Since then I've been back to the site and noticed The signage wasn't clear and There doesn't seem to be any paying meters. I've also taken a picture. Would this help if I sent it in? I have wrote to them to ask for photographic evidence but they never replied. It may have been my partner who was driving but he has a disabled badge and since looking at the sign the writing is far too small to see that these don't allow for free parking. Do I mention this?
Sorry for all the questions but it's driving me mad.... literally!!

Coupon-mad

So do I fill in the form

No, you just do the acknowledgement of service first on MCOL (no paper forms).

When I fill this in is this my defence which they ask for my legal reasons as to why I'm not paying? Do I send this as a paper copy

No paper copy of the form - AOS is done online with NOTHING about defence or those few words WILL be taken to be your defence - eek!

or wait for some correspondence from the court

No. MCOL then defence, nothing in between comes from the court, read this:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5546325

I've also taken a picture. Would this help if I sent it in?

No not yet, see the above link.

Which parking firm and have you admitted who was driving or are you not sure?

cookie_archie

Ok thanks so I'll just fill in the AOS first. I was under the impression I have to send the form in as well? Sorry but it doesn't seem very clear and I'm worried they'll hold it against me.
So therefore once I've filled in AOS what happens next?
Thanks for your help

Coupon-mad

No sending the paper form! You know what happens next because I've shown you bargepole's linked post. DEFENCE!

Read other threads to find similar recent (not old) defences on here and answer please:

Which parking firm and have you admitted who was driving or are you not sure?

cookie_archie

Hi it is civil enforcement and I'm not admitting to driving

Thanks

Coupon-mad

For other newbies to see as well, here is a typical CEL generic defence to use/adapt (NOT his earlier versions, only post #16):

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...39#post71748239

With the usual outcome, no hearing:

Just wanted to thank everyone on the forum & especially everyone that offered advice on this thread as the court confirmed that my case has been stayed.

cookie_archie

Hi
I filled in the AOS on the Money claim website and now going to send off my defence. Thank you for the link to this- much appreciated now do I :
write it instead of type it? Should I emit the part which discusses "there was no compliant letter before County Court claim under the practice direction....." as I did receive but but didn't acknowledge it?
Do I address the letter to "county Court business centre" do I need anything else?

Here is my Defence:
The Claim Form issued on the **** by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “The Legal Team”.

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each and every one of the following reasons:

1/ This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

2/ This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:

(a) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with no contravention nor photographs.
(B)The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.!

3/ I put the Claimant to strict proof that it issued a compliant notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions.!
Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert stated that “However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.”!

4/ Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(a) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
- [ ] (b) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
(c) It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
(d) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.

5/ BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(a) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
(b) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
(c) there is/was no compliant landowner contract.

6/ No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
It is believed Civil Enforcement do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

7/ No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:


8/ The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

9/ The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

10/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge.

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:
(a) failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 21 February 2017
(b) failed to respond to a letter from the Defendant dated *** requesting further information and details of the claim

The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

Signed
Date

Coupon-mad

Thank you for the link to this- much appreciated now do I :
write it instead of type it? Should I emit the part which discusses "there was no compliant letter before County Court claim under the practice direction....." as I did receive but but didn't acknowledge it?
Do I address the letter to "county Court business centre" do I need anything else?

All answered in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread (tells you how to type up a decent defencem right down to the font size & headings and addressee court).

Re the LBCCC question, you could remove "there was no compliant letter before County Court claim under the practice direction....." or change it to:

A letter before claim was issued but it failed to comply with the Practice Direction, disclosing no facts that could give rise to any claim in law, no evidence of a contract or keeper liability and no cause of action against me.