Total parking solutions/ ie legal solicitors

miladm1067

I had a read through the forum and plucked out any relevant arguments. I just wanted to know if this is roughly what I can send them.


the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: ___

Between:

Civil Enforcement Limited v ___

Defence!Statement

I am ___, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle ___. I currently reside at ____.

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


The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 'legal representative’s (or even admin) costs' were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not as there was no clear, transparent information about how to obtain a permit either inside or outside the site) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible £900 for outstanding debt and damages.

due to local knowledge and having inspected the signs at the location before responding to your letter, I am aware that whilst your client's signage is displayed at the material location, the terms are illegible from a driving seat. Moreover, the unremarkable boards placed sporadically by TPS is unclear as to which set of signs relate to which section of the car parking area. The signage is, therefore, incapable of creating any contractual liability on the part of any driver, as any purported contractual terms are void for uncertainty.





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 .

(b) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.

Further, your client has adduced no evidence whatsoever as to the identities of the drivers at the material times. There was, of course, no requirement in law for me to respond to the NTKs in question, so any suggestion of failure on my part will be robustly defended. Indeed I view the continued - increasingly threatening - demands as harassment. Had TPS evidenced the driver(s) in their NTKs, I would have passed the purported 'PCNs' to those drivers, since these are not matters for which a registered keeper can be held liable in law. This position is entirely due to the choice of your client when drawing up a Notice to Keeper (NTK) document which does not in any way attempt to use nor rely upon the rights they might otherwise have been able to claim, under the Protection of Freedoms Act (the POFA) Schedule 4.

ou have listed separate 'parking charge notices' in which the facts seem to be fairly identical but all of the NTKs are matters for an identified driver only. I am not liable and cannot be lawfully assumed to have been the driver on each or any occasion. Should you attempt to rely upon the cases of Elliott v Loake (irrelevant criminal case) and or Combined Parking Solutions v AJH Films (irrelevant employee/employer commercial liability issue), you should be aware and fairly warned now, to advise your client that these have never been reported as persuasive or even applicable to any robustly-defended private parking case.

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 confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Signed

Coupon-mad

Again you have done no proof reading. We've already said this, your PPC is not Civil Enforcement.

And you have copied stuff about: ''nor the permit information'' but were you a permit holder?

And you have copied: ''a possible £900 for outstanding debt and damages'' but your first post talked about one PCN for £110, not £900!

And you've copied stuff from a letter, not a defence. Do not write ''you'' because your defence is addressed to the court, not to the solicitors:

Further, your client has adduced no evidence whatsoever as to the identities of the drivers at the material times. There was, of course, no requirement in law for me to respond to the NTKs in question, so any suggestion of failure on my part will be robustly defended. Indeed I view the continued - increasingly threatening - demands as harassment. Had TPS evidenced the driver(s) in their NTKs, I would have passed the purported 'PCNs' to those drivers, since these are not matters for which a registered keeper can be held liable in law. This position is entirely due to the choice of your client when drawing up a Notice to Keeper (NTK) document which does not in any way attempt to use nor rely upon the rights they might otherwise have been able to claim, under the Protection of Freedoms Act (the POFA) Schedule 4.

You have listed separate 'parking charge notices' in which the facts seem to be fairly identical but all of the NTKs are matters for an identified driver only. I am not liable and cannot be lawfully assumed to have been the driver on each or any occasion. Should you attempt to rely upon the cases of Elliott v Loake (irrelevant criminal case) and or Combined Parking Solutions v AJH Films (irrelevant employee/employer commercial liability issue), you should be aware and fairly warned now, to advise your client that these have never been reported as persuasive or even applicable to any robustly-defended private parking case.

miladm1067

my fine has gone up to about 800. i can't find one specific to boa. Does anyone mind posting a link?

Coupon-mad

So you can't find a single defence about a BPA Claimant? Yet in this forum's first page today, there's a thread about a ParkingEye claim, and others about UKPC is you search for those keywords. Loads v BPA companies.

Search and you will find your own links. It is easy once you try the search function, back on page one just above the thread list (NOT top of the entire page).

miladm1067

i sent a defence earlier. Did it not upload?

miladm1067

the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: ___

Between:

tps v ___

Defence!Statement

I am ___, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle ___. I currently reside at ____.

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


The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 'legal representative’s (or even admin) costs' were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

a) The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.

b) The Claimant also failed to state that they do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver as required by POFA, Schedule 4 9.2(e)

3. 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.

The Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and asks leave to amend the Defence after receiving same.

4. The claimant has no locus standi to bring this case. Absent a contract or chain of contracts from the landowner to the claimant I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name.
ParkingEye v Sharma (3QT62646 Brentford County Court) examined the contract and dismissed the claim for the reason that the Claimant had no ownership of, or proprietary interest in, the land; it followed that the Claimant, acting as an agent, had no locus standi to bring court proceedings in its own name.

ParkingEye v Gardam (3QT60598) similarly examined the contract and found the Sharma judgment persuasive.

The Defendant also refers the Court to ParkingEye v Somerfield (2012) (EWCA Civ 1338 case A3/2011/0909) that examined ParkingEye contracts. This stated that any debt was due to Somerfield and that ParkingEye did not have the authority to issue proceedings. It follows therefore that if a debt exists, it is owed to the landowner, not the Claimant.

5. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1


6. The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist.

a) The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible. Part E, Schedule 1 of the Code of Practice of the British Parking Association (BPA) of which Parking Eye is a member, clearly states that “Text should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.”

b) The sign fails because it must state what the ANPR data will be used for. This is an ICO breach.

8. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not as there was no clear, transparent information about how to obtain a permit either inside or outside the site) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible £900 for outstanding debt and damages.

due to local knowledge and having inspected the signs at the, I am aware that whilst your client's signage is displayed at the material location, the terms are illegible from a driving seat. Moreover, the unremarkable boards placed sporadically by TPS is unclear as to which set of signs relate to which section of the car parking area. The signage is, therefore, incapable of creating any contractual liability on the part of any driver, as any purported contractual terms are void for uncertainty.





The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:


Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.

Further, your client has adduced no evidence whatsoever as to the identities of the drivers at the material times. There was, of course, no requirement in law for me to respond to the NTKs in question, so any suggestion of failure on my part will be robustly defended. Indeed I view the continued - increasingly threatening - demands as harassment. Had TPS evidenced the driver(s) in their NTKs, I would have passed the purported 'PCNs' to those drivers, since these are not matters for which a registered keeper can be held liable in law.


The listed 'parking charge notices' in which the facts seem to be fairly identical but all of the NTKs are matters for an identified driver only. I am not liable and cannot be lawfully assumed to have been the driver on each or any occasion. Should you attempt to rely upon the cases of Elliott v Loake (irrelevant criminal case) and or Combined Parking Solutions v AJH Films (irrelevant employee/employer commercial liability issue).

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.

My italics – it is clear that the legal process expects a signature with a name printed underneath, not a pro forma printed name.
As an example as to why this prevents me filing a full defence at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has not been provided to the Defendant.
I understand from extensive research that the claimant’s solicitors are serial abusers of the court process in this manner.

16. The Particulars of Claim fail to disclose the head or heads of action in which these proceedings are based.

17. The Defendant asks that the claimant is ordered to file particulars which comply with practice directions and include at least the following information:

a. Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge.
b. A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (eg copies of signage)
c. How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
d. Whether the Claimant is acting as agent or principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter

If it is so pleaded before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act (the “Act”) the Claimant must demonstrate that there was a “relevant obligation” either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort.
I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.


I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Signed

Coupon-mad

Struggling to think you are at University and in fact, whether this thread is real or set up as a parking firm spoof pour encourager les autres.

There are so many inaccuracies in your account, going back over your thread.

One minute you have one PCN, £110.

Then it's two, £200.

Then in another post, ''several'':

the car was parked in university and received several tickets.

Then you've copies stuff from a defence about 'permit info' (do you have a permit?) and it's not about £900, is it?:

nor the permit information mentioned a possible £900 for outstanding debt and damages.

Trying to work out what this is all about - you've written misspelled posts and ungrammatical sentences, more like the attempts to communicate from the knuckle-draggers at PPC World. Which Uni is this, Reading maybe?

https://www.reading.ac.uk/parking/students/park-student-parking.aspx

As you are a student and it's the Holidays - and we regulars mainly all work for a living - I ask that you proof-read that draft, and make the necessary changes to make it make sense.

I saw:

- sentences that were unfinished,
- the wrong part of Schedule 4 (windscreen PCN cases are not about para 9)
- old stuff about the Gardam and the Sharma cases, not used for donkeys years
- nothing about any defence as to why you were parked there, why you thought it was OK
- using the POFA when in fact, won't it be obvious to the Judge that you were driving?
- mention of ANPR (camera enforcement) but was this even used at the Uni?
- mention of ParkingEye (and not just in the Beavis case, I mean you've copied a phrase about ParkingEye, where you need to change it to TPS or 'the Claimant'.
- you appear to have copied someone's file note?! 'my italics' whaaat?:

''My italics'' – it is clear that the legal process expects a signature with a name printed underneath, not a pro forma printed name.

And if this was filed by Solicitors using MCOL, they can just use the firm's printed name.

Finally, you ended with this which would be OK normally:

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

...but you haven't actually recollected anything - there is nothing about the circumstances of defence.

There are much more up to date defences here and ones about universities and permits would be a good start...if this was about not displaying a permit (but you haven't said, so how will the Judge know what your defence actually is).

Try searching the forum for 'University defence' or 'permit defence' if that's what this is about. Copy only recent wording from 2016/17, and show us a draft suited for your case, with the right facts in it, and decide if you are going to defend as the student driver, or not.

If you want to talk about why the car was parked there and what the signs say, no contract etc., then why hide behind saying the keeper has not been identified. It would take two minutes at the hearing to show you were likely to be the driver (or am I wrong?). What do you think a Judge will make of a student being disingenuous about who was driving at his/her University?

miladm1067

I apologise. This is due to further parking tickets obtained after the thread had been created. I had parked in several areas (NOT PAID car parking area, permit spots or loading bays in university) I was told by lecturers the tickets you receive here are not enforceable by law and you will not have to pay anything. Hearing this I parked constantly receiving several tickets and ignoring them. It seems now they have caught up with me and realising now they can take me to court and the current fine is about £900. This is from the latest letter received. Do I have grounds to defend this? At least the highly inflated charges against me?


I had tried to copy defences from this website and failed miserably lol. Any further advice would be appreicated

Coupon-mad

Yes you have grounds - what's the sum on that claim form then and let's see a link to it.

miladm1067

I will upload a picture of the claim? Is that what you mean by link? I have acknowledged it via MCOL so just the defence left!. I thought I uploaded photos earlier in the thread?