Being taken to court

albo_uk

windscreen ticket only

Lamilad

Lamilad wrote: »

I'm not certain but I thought PPS were pofa compliant.

Have you actually established that the NTK was not pofa compliant. It would help if you could post the NTK (with personal details redacted).

If you rely heavilly on pofa non-compliance and it turns out they DO comply then that's a big part of your defence kibosh'd... and it may turn the judge off your defence altogether

albo_uk

I am not sure tbh i dont have NTk

i was abroad when this occurred so maybe the judge will be on my side i hope

Coupon-mad

You have repeated 5.3 so delete one of those duplicates!

If you were away, state that in your defence near the start, so:

4.1 For the avoidance of doubt on the relevant date I was the registered keeper of a BMW, registration number xxxxxx but I was not the driver and cannot be held or assumed to have been the driver. I can prove in my evidence for the hearing, that I was away on holiday at the material time.

4.2 I did not consent for the vehicle to be used in my absence, indeed I will adduce evidence that this vehicle was written off due to an accident, the month before the date cited by this Claimant.

4.2 Even if this Claimant's evidence of the car is correct, I cannot be sure who might have used the car in my absence so the driver's name is unknown and they did not act with my consent, nor under any insurance and as such the vehicle must be deemed at the material time, as stolen.

4.3 Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, a registered keeper is not liable where a vehicle was being driven without their consent/stolen:

''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle: - 4(1)The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2)The right under this paragraph applies only if—

(a)the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met; and

(b)the vehicle was not a stolen vehicle at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.''


Have you reported this to the Police now? Even late, make the incident report and get a number emailed to you because you will need to prove your version of events at a hearing.

albo_uk

Thanks for ur reply
I will post here the full defence i have done and let me know what u think

albo_uk

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM NO. xxxxx

BETWEEN :

GLADSTONES SOLICITORS LTD

Claimant

AND

xxxxxx

Defendant


DEFENCE



Introduction
1. I am xxx, the defendant in this matter. My address for service is 1xxx

2. This is my statement of truth and my defence.

3. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I seek the Court's permission to amend and supplement
this defence as may be required upon disclosure of the claimant's case.

4. For the avoidance of doubt on the relevant date I was the registered keeper of a bmw
, registered number xxxx

5. The Claim relates to an unwarranted penalty sum arising from the vehicle having been allegedly
parked at xxxxx on 15th may 2015.



5.1. The driver has not been identified by this Claimant , who appear to be pursuing me simply
because I was the registered keeper of the car, yet without using the only applicable statute which
would have enabled a parking firm to rely on 'keeper liability'



5.2. If the Claimant is intending to pursue this claim against the Defendant on the basis that the
Defendant is the registered keeper then the Claimant has failed to show that the conditions for
recovering this charge under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have been met. The
Defendant disputes that any of the conditions necessary for a claim to be pursued against the keeper
of the vehicle have been met.



5.3. No evidence has been provided to show a valid Notice to Driver was given to the driver in
accordance with Paragraph 7, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
5.4. Where a Notice to Driver was given no evidence has been provided to show that a valid Notice to Keeper
was served in accordance with Paragraph 8, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Rebuttal of Claim

7. It is denied that:

a. A contract was formed

b. There was an agreement to pay a parking charge.

c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site.

d. That in addition to the Parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified
additional sums.

e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the terms of Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

f. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the British Parking Association
Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.

g. That I am liable for the purported debt.

8. It is further denied that I owe any debt to the claimant or that any debt is in fact owed or that any
debt exists or could ever exist or has ever existed. That in any event the claimant has failed to comply
with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules and that their claim is both unfounded and
vexatious.

9. The claimant is put to the strictest proof of their assertions.



My Defence



10. My defence will rely principally upon the following points:



10. When the the event occurred i was out of the country (proof will be provided)
11 Housemates had access to my car keys

11. That upon revisiting the car park in question the signs were awfully erected on site 2m high up on
the wall with tiny writing making it impossible to read it from the ground not even standing close to it .
The signage does not meet the British Parking Association(BPA) Code of Practice or the
Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice which makes it incapable of forming the
basis of a contract and indeed make it clear that that is not the case. Further it is trite law that a term
that is forbidding cannot also constitute
an offer. It is therefore denied that any contract was formed or was capable of being formed.

12. Underlining that is Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice which gives clear instructions as to
the placing, visibility and clarity of any signs that are used to form contracts. It says:

18.3 You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are
given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all
the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they
are easy to see, read and understand.

13. The defendant refutes that there were clear and visible signs, with Terms that formed the basis of
a contact and which met the specifications above.

14. Section 7 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice outlines to operators some of the
common law principles of operating on someone else's land as a licensee. One such item is written
authority - a written contract - to be there. It defines the elements of this written authority as follows
:

7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the
written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the
land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of the
management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for.

In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that either
you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary or that
you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges and, with their permission, through the
courts if necessary.

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure
that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action
being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly
defined.

b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any
restrictions on hours of operation.

c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking
control and enforcement





d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs.

e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

15. If in the alternative it is the claimant's case that his claim is founded in trespass (which is in any
event denied) then in a car park setting any damages in trespass can only be assessed based on
a calculation of the proportion of income lost based on the time of the alleged occupation. Any sum
sought could therefore only be minimal and de-minimis.

16. That the amount demanded is therefore excessive and unconscionable and especially so when
compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council which is set at £50 or £25
if paid within 14 days.

17. In the alternative, the attention of the court is drawn to para. 4(5) Schedule 4 Protection of F7
eedoms Act 2012 which sets out that the maximum amount recoverable from the registered keeper,
where the keeper liability provisions have been properly invoked (which is expressly denied in this
case) is that amount specified in the Notice to Keeper (whether issued in accordance with paras 8(2)c
; 8(2)d, 9(2)c or 9(2)d of the Act).

18.The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In
particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.



19. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of
Claim.



19.1. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would
enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence.

It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is
brought. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what
the alleged contract was nor anything, which could be considered a fair exchange of information



19.2. On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by
Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to
their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and providing no facts
that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.



19.3. On the 19th Audust 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar
parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs
7.3 - 7.5. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars, which they failed to do, and the
court confirmed the claim was struck out.
19. In view of all the foregoing the court is invited to strike the matter out of its own motion.
20. The claimant is put to strict proof of the assertions they have made or may make in their fuller
claim.
This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

albo_uk

Is it ok as i wanna send it, today is my last day to respond

I found who the driver was would it help me if i were to name him but the problem is that he left Uk for good i think

Lamilad

albo_uk wrote: »

I found who the driver was would it help me if i were to name him but the problem is that he left Uk for good

It would've helped you to name him to the PPC before they took court action but again only of they are not PoFA compliant. Not sure it's any use naming him now.

Lamilad

albo_uk wrote: »

Is it ok as i wanna send it, today is my last day to respond

Are you sure today is the deadline? What is the issue date on the court claim form?

albo_uk

A claim was issued against you on 28/02/2017
Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 04/03/2017 at 22:37:39
Your acknowledgment of service was received on 06/03/2017 at 01:06:41

Being weekend tomorrow it won't count if i were to email it over the weekend probably