Parking Charge Notice incurred by ex-wife

theargumentbydesign

So, if I use this defense - even though it's nothing to do with the actual circumstances - that's my best bet? I have updated some of the details in the template that I found in other posts... DO I keep all the arguments ? Or remove some if unknown to be true...



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

The Claim Form issued on the 12 June 2017 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 un-denied 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 covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with no contravention nor photographs. The defendant, who is the registered keeper is not identified as the driver at the alleged time.

(b)The initial County Court Claim Form only contains the claimants name, address and amounts of money identified as debt and damages, with a notice that detailed particulars will be provided within 14 days.

(c)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.

It does not detail
1. Proof or confirmation of the driver at the time of the alleged incident.
2. Proof of the vehicle being there at the alleged time.
3. How long or proof that the car was actually parked
4. The vehicle type and colour
5. Why the charge arose

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.”

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 £322.59 for outstanding debt and damages.

4/ Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

(a) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.

(b) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) 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.

(c) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.

(d) It is believed the terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the UTCCRs (as applicable at the time).

(e) 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.

(f) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.

5/ POFA 2012 breach and the Defendant was not the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

No keeper liability can apply, due to this Claimant's PCN not complying with Schedule 4. The driver has not been evidenced and a registered keeper cannot otherwise be held liable. In cases where a keeper is deemed liable, where compliant documentation was served, the sum pursued cannot exceed the original parking charge, only if adequately drawn to the attention of drivers on any signage.

6/ 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.

(d) The charge is not based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss (a condition at the time).

7/ No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

It is believed Civil Enforcement do not hold a legitimate contract at this lcoation. 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.

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

This Claimant files serial claims regarding sites where they have lost the contract, known as revenge claims and it believed this is one such case. This is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue.

9/ 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.

10/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is not credible that £50.00 legal costs were incurred so the Claimant is put to strict proof it has incurred them. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

11/ If the court believes there was a contract (which is denied, due to unlit signage) this is just the sort of 'simple financial contract' identified at the Supreme Court as one with an easily quantifiable loss (the tariff) where any sum pursued for breach must still relate to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

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

(a) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the Claim Form issued on 12th June 2017.
(b) Has not to date provided a Particulars of Claim and if they do not do so well within 14 days of the date of service of the Claim Form, it will be impossible for the Defendant to prepare any form of defence.

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.

In the alternative, the Defendant is willing for the matter to be decided by POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) which will decide the dispute and limits any further costs to this claimant to £27, with no legal costs. This is the bespoke ADR for BPA members, is available at any time (not just the first 28 days) and has been used to settle private parking court claims on multiple occasions even after proceedings have commenced. POPLA has not been undertaken in this case nor was it mentioned in the recent sparse communications from this Claimant.

The Defendant invites the Court to use its discretion to make such an order, if not striking out this claim.

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

theargumentbydesign

Actually as a PS - my Claim form doesn't even state that this is a parking offence. There is literally NO information on the form as to what it refers to. Just a demand for a sum of money.

System

Check the signature box in the bottom left of the claim form. This might apply too

The Claim Form was not correctly filed under the Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “Legal Team”.

theargumentbydesign

Am just reading the article about defence arguments - and many in the above catchall defence seem to be useless.

This one however - for keepers who were not the driver at the time is interesting:

Not the Driver: The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) gave PPCs the ability to pursue vehicle keepers if the driver's identity is not known. In order to do so, their paperwork must comply with the strict wording of that legislation. If it does, then it doesn't matter whether you were driving or not, they can claim against you. If it does not (and you need to go through it with a fine toothcomb) AND you can show that you weren't driving, you can argue that they have no basis for keeper liability, and can only pursue the driver.

Am not sure what the strict wording of the legislation is... but if anyone knows that'd be handy.

theargumentbydesign

So the process of putting together a defence is to put together as many points - even if only tangentially relevant - that may be considered - in the hope that one of them will stick with the court? Is that right? With the trade-off being that you don't include so much irrelevant stuff that you !!!! of the judge - or whoever might read it?

DoaM

Have you acknowledged the claim yet?

If yes, did you put anything into the Defence box?

If yes then you can't now add new points to your defence, you can only provide supporting information for the defence points you filed. (Is my understanding).

vkrishna11

Hello friends,
I'm yet another victim of the dreaded 'Lidl - Athena' parking fine phenomenon. I, apparently, overstayed for 14 mins above the 10 mins timelimit and had been charged with £95.

I've written to Lidl stating that the charge is ridiculously high for overstaying just for 14 mins while I was busy shopping at Lidl. Also, provided them a snapshot of my bank statement outlining card payments to them.
But alas, all they want me to do is appeal to the car park management. Now, I'm not sure what else I could provide them as a proof, as most people wont keep grocery reciepts for more than few days. Forus, it usually goes into the bin ASAP .
All that I have is the bank statement to prove my shopping activity which Lidl says they can't accept as an evidence.
This definitely is an unwanted and unreasonable charge for no intentional fault of mine. I really dont want to pay them even a penny after all the effort I've put in to to reach out to lidl to get my charge cancelled.
I generally wont mind paying up if it is reasonable & if i'm at fault which is certainly not in this instance.

By the way, I'm not a British citizen and will be permanently moving abroad within a month or so. Will sell my car and all belongings soon.
Please could you let me know if I can simply ignore this charge - without any negative consequences?
I might visit UK again on business visa for short term. Please let me know if you think I might face any problems coming back on business visa.
Regards,
krishna

Quentin

You must start your own thread to get any advice

Please don't hijack another thread, you just cause confusion

theargumentbydesign

I haven't yet posted the defence - thanks mainly to reading the articles here - I've just done the AoS form. I want to make sure the defence is as robust as can be as I've already spent a way too much time trying to unpick it - I don't want it dragging on and on so as far as I can tell a strong defense is the best route to get them to desist.

Coupon-mad

theargumentbydesign wrote: »

I haven't yet posted the defence - thanks mainly to reading the articles here - I've just done the AoS form. I want to make sure the defence is as robust as can be as I've already spent a way too much time trying to unpick it - I don't want it dragging on and on so as far as I can tell a strong defense is the best route to get them to desist.

Good!

Yes that defence is robust, was your claim form actually signed by the Legal team though? Things have changed a bit and I think it now just says 'Civil Enforcement Ltd' doesn't it?

I only skim-read the defence as I can see it's a CEL one, but have you made it crystal clear you were not the driver? Needs to be stated near the top.

Also you could state this too, and state that your permanent address is out of English Courts' jurisdiction:

I'm not a British citizen and will be permanently moving abroad within a month or so. Will sell my car and all belongings soon.

If a Directions Questionnaire (DQ) arrives at the UK address, you WILL need to contest jurisdiction so will someone collect your post and forward it to you?

This should see the case 'stayed' - i.e. no hearing. Probably no DQ but I just want to be sure you will see your post.