Claim form for court after parking tickets

Oldskoolpirate

Hi guys

So I've recieved a few parking tickets, I believe a total of 5. Three within a car park for not being a permit holder and another two by a local street, again for not having a permit. I believe they are all from PCM.

After looking online I thought it was okay to just ignore them until I got a letter three days ago for a "claim form" with loads of court details for Northampton. The fine has also increased by 140%. I don't want to pay this, is this a real court thing or just fake? Should I ignore it? What do I do next

Thank you in advance for your help
Old skool pirate

System

Is this an N1 claim form like this one

Oldskoolpirate

Yes it does resemble that form there

Oldskoolpirate

Just looked and i can confirm that that is what i have received, any advice on what to do next?

Lamilad

Acknowledge the claim via the MCOL website do not click "start defence".

Read post #2 of the NEWBIES sticky thread and the included links.

Research other defences - enter words like 'court defence' into the search function

Post your draft defence on here for further advice

The_Deep

You need to take this seriously, with five tickets they could be dunning you for over a thousand pounds.

Coupon-mad

Oldskoolpirate wrote: »

Just looked and i can confirm that that is what i have received, any advice on what to do next?

The advice is in post #2 of 'NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST' (not the first post of it - go to the second post of that sticky).

Oldskoolpirate

Thanks for all the responses, when I get home I will ask for additional time.

However with regards to writing the defence, I looked at post #2 on the sticky as coupon-mad suggest however all these previous defences had valid reason. To be honest I simply didn't have a permit nor did I pay to park. I read ages ago when I first got these tickets about claiming the "signage wasn't obvsious" or something along them lines. Is anyone able to guide me to a similar defence to an N1 form where the person had no permit?

Oldskoolpirate

So I have registered and requested an extra 14 days. I have put together a draft for a defence and while doing so I double checked and can confirm that this ticket was from PCM parked on a local street to a university and I DID NOT display a permit.

I did find a draft and copy and pasted it and changed the relevant details, thus I am unsure of some parts which I'll question afterwards.


Here is my draft:

---

I am ***** defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim;

On or around December 2016 I received at Parking charge notice in the post in relation to my vehicle ***** which was parked without displaying a parking permit at *** ***, ***.

I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:
1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the!time of the alleged incident.
2. The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained.
a. The Claimant did not identify the driver
b. 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 in order to hold the defendant responsible for!the driver’s alleged breach.
c. The Claimant's increasingly demanding letters failed to evidence any contravention or clear/prominent signage. Further, the Notice to Keeper (postal 'PCN') failed to give the statutory warning to the registered keeper about the '28 day period' which is mandatory wording as prescribed in paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the Claimant is unable to rely on the 'keeper liability' provisions of the POFA.!

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.
a. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
b. The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
c. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim.!The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
d. 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. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.
e. On the **** another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by!Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of Northampton 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’
f. 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 will now be struck out.!

4. The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.
a. No Letter of Claim was sent to the Defendant and no initial information was sent to the Defendant.
b. I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out that there can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-action Conduct process, especially bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before issuing proceedings.
5. The defendant wrote to the claimant on ***** asking for:
a. Full particulars of the parking charges
b. Who the party was that contracted with ES Parking.
c. The full legal identity of the landowner
d. A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that ES Parking had their authority.
e. If the charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide justification of this sum
f. If the charge was based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking and If so to provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.
g. To provide a copy of the signs that PCM can evidence were on site and which contended formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all photographs taken of the vehicle in question.

The claimant has not responded. Withholding any relevant photos of the car, particularly the windscreen and dashboard, and the signage terms, despite being asked for by the Defendant at the outset, is against the SRA code as well as contrary to the ‘overiding objective’ in the pre action protocol.

As Gladsones are a firm of solicitors whose Directors also run the IPC Trade Body and deal with private!parking issues every single day of the week there can be no excuse for these omissions.

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

6. PCM re not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they!do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring this case.
a. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has!failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
b. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
c. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in!their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.

7.
a. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £150. This appears to be an added cost with no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
b. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

8. 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, making it difficult to read.
b. The sign fails because it must state what the ANPR data will be used for. This is an ICO breach and!contrary to the Code of Practice.
c. The sign does not contain an obligation as to how to ‘validly display’ the permit in the windscreen, therefore there was no breach of any ‘relevant obligation’ or ‘relevant contract’ as required under!Schedule 4 of POFA.
d. In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.

9. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
a. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and!accessible.

10.
a. The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a ‘local’ recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges of £25 to the original £100 with no evidence of how this extra charge has been calculated. No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs.!Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were!incorporated into the small print when they were not.!
b. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
c. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an!alleged £100 debt.
d. Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.!
e. The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal fees" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.
11. The Defendant would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished from the details, facts, and location in the Beavis case. This site does not offer a free parking licence, nor is there any comparable 'legitimate interest' nor complex contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule, as ParkingEye did in the unique case heard by the Supreme Court in 2015. Whilst the Claimant!withheld any photos of the signs on site, the Defendant contends these are illegible with terms hidden in small print, unlike the 'clear and prominent' signs which created a contract Mr Beavis was 'bound to have seen'.!

The defendant therefore asks that the court orders the case to be struck out for want of a detailed course of action and/or for the claim as having no prospect of success.

I believe the facts stated in this defense are true.


(Name) (Signature) (Date)!

_____________



Is this okay?
The questions I have are:
I have got two fines in this area but only one N1 claim form, would i need to address them both?
3.e. - Would i still put "district judge cross"?
3.f. is this relevant/needed for my defence?
5 - what if hypothetically no one involved in this wrote to the claimant? should i remove this point or keep it and maybe it just got lost in the postoffice?
8.d. refers to Beavis' case - do i include this? is it relevant/needed? (also makes a few more references to this case in further points)
And lastly, is it ok that i did copy and paste the majority of this? of course all the points are true but do you think theyll receive loads in the same format and not accept them?

Lamilad

So I have registered and requested an extra 14 days

Do you mean you've completed the acknowledgement of service on MCOL?

I have got two fines in this area but only one N1 claim form, would i need to address them both?

Do the particulars of claim refer to one incident or both?

3.e. - Would i still put "district judge cross"?

Why wouldn't you?

3.f. is this relevant/needed for my defence?

Not especially but no harm in leaving it in.

5 - what if hypothetically no one involved in this wrote to the claimant? should i remove this point or keep it and maybe it just got lost in the postoffice?

If you can show you've written to them - email, proof of postage - keep it.
If you haven't written to them, remove it.

Oldskoolpirate

Lamilad wrote: »

Do you mean you've completed the acknowledgement of service on MCOL?

yeah thats correct

Lamilad wrote: »

Do the particulars of claim refer to one incident or both?

It only refers to one incident which was the second and last fine I got in this specific area.

Lamilad wrote: »

Not especially but no harm in leaving it in.

ok thank you

Lamilad wrote: »

If you can show you've written to them - email, proof of postage - keep it.
If you haven't written to them, remove it.

ok i wont include that part then.

Thank you for replying back, would it matter that it fairly similar to previous defences?