NGP - Company Vehicle

Noree

Many thanks for all the help. Defence draft to be put together ASAP!

I've now (finally) got a LBC for the other two mentioned before on this thread.

Can they seriously expect me to do this twice? I expect I'll be getting a second court claim in the coming weeks. Ridiculous and a waste of time.

Would it be worth responding via email to Galdstones referring to POFA 2012 para 13&14?

Coupon-mad

I've now (finally) got a LBC for the other two mentioned before on this thread.

Can they seriously expect me to do this twice? I expect I'll be getting a second court claim in the coming weeks.

No, not really, that's (arguably, and you MUST argue) an abuse of process and against the overriding objective, and ultimately a waste of court time as well as yours.

Include mention of the other LBC in your defence as well to point out how G's have disregarded their first duty to the court and shown no due diligence in ensuring all their client's charges are included in one claim seeing as they are essentially about the same matter and following a similar timeline.

Invite them to amend the claim to include all of the charges, or else hold the LBC one in abeyance, pending this claim outcome. If they fail to do so then you will immediately ask the courts to strike out the second claim as an abuse of the court process and/or require that the charges are amalgamated into one case to be heard at one hearing, and you will NOT be agreeing for any such case to be 'heard on the papers' so finish by telling them to spare you their template robo claim rubbish.

Once defended, please complain to your MP about this diabolical harassment by G's, who also run the IPC and IAS 'appeals' (or at least they had the same Directors until they recently artificially separated them to make it appear there is no connection nor conflict of interests).

Noree

DRAFT DEFENCE.

Please critique/advise.

***************************************************

I am xxxxxxxxxx, Defendant in this matter. It is admitted that the Defendant was the hirer of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

The Defendant denies any debt in its entirety and asserts that the Claimant has no cause for action. The Defendants reasons for such are as follows –

1. The particulars of claim submitted by the Claimant have completely failed to comply with the strict and clear legislation of POFA 2012, which the Claimant mentions in their Final Notice. Refer to Schedule 4, paragraphs 13 and 14. The Defendant has not received any Notice to Hirer documentation.

2. Paragraph 13 clearly states that the Claimant must have all relevant documentation from the vehicle hire-firm in place before attempting to recover any parking charges. No indication the claimant has any of the following:
(a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and
(c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

This includes all specifics in Paragraph 13



3. Paragraph 14 shows that the Claimant are in breach of POFA 2012 again. Before sending/forwarding any documents to the Defendant, they must adhere to the following conditions:
(a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;
(b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed; and
(c)the vehicle was not a stolen vehicle at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.

A copy of the documents from paragraph 13(2) have not been sent to the Defendant. I have evidence of a notice to keeper/owner referring to the same alleged parking offence addressed differently three times. These haven’t been forwarded in the manner of which is stated in POFA 2012.



4. The signage at the site is thoroughly inadequate to form a contract with the motorist. There is photographic and video evidence to clarify. Signage states the Claimant is part of BPA’s Code of Practice. This is not the case. Having looked on the Claimant’s website, New Generation Parking are part of IPC. It is believed the Claimant changed from BPA to IPC on 30/12/2015 and were ordered to change their signs. The signage is furthermore inadequate as it also displays the Safe Contractor logo. Following diligent and thorough research, the Defendant can find no information whatsoever to suggest that the Claimant is any way linked to the aforementioned Safe Contractor approved. It is believed this expired in 2010. I will use these pictures and videos as proof in evidence. In BPA’s Code of Practice it states entrance signs “must always mention that terms and conditions apply and say where drivers can find more details”. This information is completely invalid due to the incorrect signage.

5. The Claimant have recently fallen foul of their signage and as mentioned in point 2, they have fallen foul of this again. Please see the following link: http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/new-generation-parking-management-found.html


6. The Defendant has two more cases of the same nature at the same site and has also requested that these are to be condensed. As of yet, the Defendant has received two separate Letter Before Claims and it is believed that the Claimant are going to attempt a second ‘cycle’ of these processes with another Court Claim. The Defendant requested that all three cases are combined. This was rejected by the Defendant’s solicitors. The Claimant were included in the email loop but never offered a response. This is seen to be a waste of time, effort and stress to the Defendant and also a waste of the courts’ time. The Claimant’s solicitors have disregarded their first duty to the court and shown no due diligence in ensuring all their client's charges are included in one claim seeing as they are essentially about the same matter and following a similar timeline.

7. Paragraph 9 of POFA 2012 states “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”. No ‘period of time’ parked mentioned, only the time photos were taken. This is a clear breach (again) of POFA 2012.


8. As for the ‘balance of likelihood’ being the hirer of this hire vehicle, more than one person has access to drive it. This is more likely on weekends, which when this alleged offence(s) took place. The identity of the driver on this date and time cannot be confirmed. First notice sent over 2 months from alleged offence and due to the time taken to be made aware of offence, the hirer cannot remember who would’ve been driving. More than one driver authorised to drive lease vehicle.



9. The Claimants solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals service have identified many poorly produced claims. As a result, it is believed that the solicitors conduct in many of these cases has come under scrutiny. It has also been insinuated that their business model seemed to scare people into paying up before the case went to court and claiming additional money that they knew they would not have any right to in a court. Please see the following link: http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/judge-fed-up-with-gladstones-behaviour.html

10. The Claimant may rely on the POFA in order to chase the Defendant for the alleged debt, however, in order to do this the ‘Notice to Keeper’ document must comply with the strict rules of the POFA Schedule 4. These rules state that the maximum amount that can be sought from the keeper is the same as that detailed in the initial ‘Notice to Driver’. The additional fees added have breached the terms set in POFA and as a result the Claimant cannot seek any charge from the Defendant. The Defendant also has reasonable belief that any added legal fees are completely fanciful.

11. I did not appeal as thought to be a scam and another ‘roboclaim’. Was half-minded about taking this seriously. There are various threads referring to both the Claimant and their solicitors that questioned the full credibility of this alleged offense.


Statement of truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Name:


Date:


Signature:

Coupon-mad

Looks to cover the bases.

I would move #7 up to be with the other points about the POFA as it reads in a slightly disjointed way, where it is.

Noree

Thanks for the feedback! Having read it back, I may tidy it up a tad and re-post. It started to boggle my brain (and eyes) a bit after a while of research and 'moulding' my defence!!

Will also sort point #7.

Noree

Hi all. I have put a little extra 'meat on the bones' after doing some more research etc. Please feedback and critique! Hopefully it makes a very good read?! One feels more confident with the following

*******************************************************

I am xxxxxxxxxx, Defendant in this matter. It is admitted that the Defendant was the hirer of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

The Defendant denies any debt in its entirety and asserts that the Claimant has no cause for action.
The Defendants reasons for such are as follows –

1. The particulars of claim submitted by the Claimant have completely failed to comply with the strict and clear legislation of Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 (Schedule 4), which the Claimant mentions in their “Final Notice” document. The Defendant has not received any Notice to Hirer documentation. Please refer to section POFA Schedule 4, paragraphs 13 & 14 for full compliance required by the Claimant. This has not been met and clearly shows a breach of this legislation.

2. Paragraph 13 clearly states that the Claimant must have all relevant documentation from the vehicle hire-firm in place before attempting to recover any parking charges. There is no indication the Claimant is in possession of the following:
(a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and
(c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

This includes all specifics in Paragraph 13



3. Schedule 4, paragraph 14 shows that the Claimant are in breach of POFA 2012 again. Before sending/forwarding any documents to the Defendant, they must adhere to the following conditions:
(a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;
(b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed; and
(c)the vehicle was not a stolen vehicle at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.

A copy of the documents from paragraph 13(2) have not been sent to the Defendant. I have evidence of a “Notice to Owner” referring to the same alleged parking offence addressed differently three times. The original notice to owner/keeper haven’t been forwarded in the manner of which is stated under POFA 2012. After notifying the Claimant that I, the Defendant hire the vehicle, it appears they have ‘latched’ onto myself and have subsequently fallen short on following the strict protocol of POFA 2012. Also, part C, Section 4 of the IPC Code of Practice states:
“4.1 Where a creditor receives notification from a vehicle hire company that at the
specified time the relevant vehicle was under a hire agreement then a Notice to Hirer
must be sent to the hirer”
The Defendant puts the Claimant to proof that any “Notice to Hirer” documents have ever been sent.

4. The signage at the site is thoroughly inadequate to form a contract with the motorist. There is photographic and video evidence to clarify. Signage states the Claimant is part of BPA’s Code of Practice. This is not the case. Having looked on the Claimant’s website, New Generation Parking are part of IPC. It is believed the Claimant changed from BPA to IPC on 30/12/2015 and were ordered to change their signs. The signage is furthermore inadequate as it also displays the Safe Contractor logo. Following diligent and thorough research, the Defendant can find no information whatsoever to suggest that the Claimant is any way linked, approved or affiliated to the aforementioned Safe Contractor. It is believed this expired in 2010. I will use these pictures and videos as proof in evidence. In BPA’s Code of Practice it states entrance signs “must always mention that terms and conditions apply and say where drivers can find more details”. This information is completely invalid due to the incorrect signage.

5. With the Claimant being part of IPC’s Code of Practice (not BPA), they must have written authority that they can operate on the private land of the alleged offence. Quoting Part A, Section 1 of the IPC Code of Practice:

“If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges.”

As the defendant, I wish to put the Claimant to proof on this matter.

6. The Claimant have recently fallen foul of their signage and as mentioned in point 4. Please see the following link: http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/new-generation-parking-management-found.html
In this particular case they have (again) fallen foul of this incorrect practice.


7. The Defendant has two more cases of the same nature at the same site, from the same Claimant and has also requested that these are to be condensed. As of yet, the Defendant has received two separate Letter Before Claims and it is believed that the Claimant are going to attempt a second ‘cycle’ of these processes with another Court Claim. The Defendant requested that all three cases are combined. This was rejected by the Defendant’s solicitors. The Claimant were included in the email loop but never offered a response. This is seen to be a waste of time, effort and stress to the Defendant and also a waste of the courts’ time. The Claimant’s solicitors have disregarded their first duty to the court and shown no due diligence in ensuring all their client's charges are included in one claim seeing as they are essentially about the same matter and following a similar timeline.

8. Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 from POFA 2012 states “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”. No ‘period of time’ parked mentioned, only the time photos were taken. This is a clear breach (again) of POFA 2012. As Part B, Section 15 of the IPC Code of Practice states:

“15. Grace Periods
15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so
they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.
15.2 Drivers must be allowed a minimum period of 10 minutes to leave a site after a
pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired.
15.3 The reference to 10 minutes in 15.2 above shall not apply where the period of pre-paid
or permitted parking does not exceed 1 hour providing that the signage on the site
makes it clear to the motorist, in a prominent font, that no grace period applies on that
land.”

And in Part C, 2.1:

“(d) Identify the period of parking to which the charge relates and the
circumstances by which the charge became payable.”

I put the Claimant to proof that any grace period has been given to the driver at the time of the alleged offense. I have photographic evidence supporting that signage doesn’t mention “no grace period applies on that land”. For that reason, there should be a grace period given.


9. As for the ‘balance of likelihood’ being the hirer of this hire vehicle, more than one person has access to drive it. This is more likely on weekends, which when this alleged offence(s) took place. The identity of the driver on this date and time cannot be confirmed. First notice sent to the hirer was received over 2 months from alleged offence and due to the time taken to be made aware of offence, the hirer cannot remember who would’ve been driving. More than one driver authorised to drive lease vehicle.

10. The Defendant has no liability as they are the keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant has failed to comply with the strict provisions of POFA 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges. The driver has not been evidenced on any occasion. There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is the keeper obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Please see POFA 2012 for principles of ‘keeper liability’, as set out in Schedule 4.


11. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals service have identified many poorly produced claims. As a result, it is believed that the solicitors conduct in many of these cases has come under scrutiny. It has also been insinuated that their business model seemed to scare people into paying up before the case went to court and claiming additional money that they knew they would not have any right to in a court. Please see the following link: http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/judge-fed-up-with-gladstones-behaviour.html

12. The Claimant may rely on the POFA in order to chase the Defendant for the alleged debt, however, in order to do this the ‘Notice to Keeper’ (or similar (such as Notice to Owner)) document must comply with the strict rules of the POFA Schedule 4. These rules state that the maximum amount that can be sought from the keeper is the same as that detailed in the initial ‘Notice to Driver’. The additional fees added have breached the terms set in POFA and as a result the Claimant cannot seek any charge from the Defendant. The Defendant also has reasonable belief that any added legal fees are completely fanciful.


13. I did not appeal as thought to be a scam, commonly known as a ‘robo-claim’. Was half-minded about taking this seriously. There are various (easily accessible) online threads referring to both the Claimant and their solicitors that questioned the full credibility of this alleged offense.


14. I believe that such ‘robo-claims’ are against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant. Especially with a second LBC issued to the Defendant after this Court Claim. I’d suggest that parking companies who breach legislation (POFA 2012), their Code of Practice and display invalid/incorrect signage, along with being largely unresponsive is not something the courts should be seen to support.



15. The Defendant would like to ask the Claimant to prove they have obtained the Registered Keeper details from DVLA on all three occasions, for all three respective notices/invoices. It is strongly believed the Claimant must obtain the Registered Keeper details on every occasion for every PCN issued. As Part C of the IPC Code of Practice states:

“1.7 Where you are provided with keeper details in relation to a parking charge, the details
must only be used in relation to the enforcement of that charge. They must not be
used in order to enforce any other parking charge(s).”

And:

“1.10 Failure to abide by any applicable laws relating to data handling may be considered an
issue of non-compliance.”

16. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.



Statement of truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Name:


Date:


Signature:

Noree

Hello all. I am wandering if anyone could offer feedback regarding my defence draft? It is the last post before this one.

I'd just like to make sure I'm wording it correctly and not being unreasonable in any manner.

Thoughts much appreciated.

Softwaremad_2

Regarding the Signage and the criminal case in magistrates - might be worthwhile you filing a complaint with trading standards in your area regarding this. NGPM have been spending a good few quid in South Wales replacing all their out of date signs - make sure your evidence is time and date stamped.

They have replaced all signs locally now removing the BPA and safe contractor logo - it has absolutely not teeth other than showing the company are not as decent as they try to show.

Have had a lot of cases discontinued when denoting the IPC/Gladstones conflict of interest as a reason for not appealing

Noree

Yes I've had a look and bookmarked some information regarding PIC & G's.

May look to submit my defence this week. Deadline is close.

Noree

Hi all

Q1. Could someone please let me know where to email my County Court Defence?

My 28 days are almost up.

I have printed and signed, will get it scanned then submit it.

I've had a little look on this forum but when I type "claim defence email" I pretty much get every topic pop up in the results!!

Q2. Also, as I'm using the MCOL service, do I have to send off any of the paperwork?

If it can be emailed, I can scan and send to myself first. If not, I will send recorded delivery to the courts.

Q3. Any option on what action is best?