County court claim centre parking fine DW Gym Tunstall Stoke on Trent, help needed!

ash_iq

Hi,

I have received a county court claim centre letter dated 08/06/17 which my fine now is £326.10, I was told by people to ignore there letters which I did however I cannot ignore this now, I have acknowledged the letter on money claim on gov.uk on 22/06/17 so had another 14 days to respond of which I have 2 days remaining. The fine was because I overstayed the 3 hr limit by 15 minutes at the carpark on the Alexandra retail park Tunstall, i'm a member of the DW gym and have been since it opened. When i first started there were no parking restrictions however since more shops opened there was a 3 hr limit. Can anyone help?? I'm not very good with these kind of things so any help would be appreciated.

Coupon-mad

Is this just a Civil Enforcement one, like all the zillions of others? If so, just copy one!

No links, they are all over this forum like a rash and very generic defences.

Redx

its not a fine , never was , its an INVOICE , for an alleged overstay on a retail park , which may come within the appropriate CoPdepending which PPC issued the original invoice (pcn)

who was that PPC and who has iisued this MCOL via Northampton CCBC ?

the NEWBIES sticky thread post #2 will help you

but you need to urgently read other court claim defences on here and draft your own asap, dpending who the claimant is ?

if it is CEL, just find half a dozen recent CEL COURT CLAIM threads on here and draft your own defence based on theirs

Half_way

You should complain to the gym, they can stop this if you say the right things - at the very least you need them to state that they do not support their agents in pursuing this through the courts.
Post your complaint up on here first, before sending it to the gym/going to the gym

Geoff1963

15 minutes sounds like less than a grace period. IMHO
ANPR photos showing in and out ?

ash_iq

Hi,


Thanks for the responses, it was CEL who issued the PCN, do you get 28 days from the acknowledgement of service to reply? I did the Aos on the 22nd June the Claim form is dated the 8th June. So once I get my defence together where do I send it, do I post it or can it be done online? Yes it was ANPR on way in and a picture of my car in the parking space, 14:04 41 coming in and then a picture of my car stationary in its space at 17:19:02

ash_iq

Below is what I am intending as my defence, does this look ok? Many thanks






In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number XXXXXXX
Between:Civil Enforcement Limited v XXXXX


Defence Statement



The Claim Form issued on the 08/06/17 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person.

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 undenied 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)There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.
(b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with no contravention nor photographs.
(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.

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 £251.72 for outstanding debt and damages.




4/ Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(a) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of 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.
(b) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
(c) It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
(d) 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.


5/ 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.

6/ No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
It is believed Civil Enforcement do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. 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.

7/ 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.

8/ 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.

9/ The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

10/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. If Mr Cohen is an employee then the Defendant suggests he is remunerated and the particulars of claim dated 08/06/17 are templates, so it is not credible that £50 legal costs were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

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 on 08/06/17
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 believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

Signed

Date XXXXX

Geoff1963

I overstayed the 3 hr limit by 15 minutes

14:04 41 coming in and then a picture of my car stationary in its space at 17:19:02

I think the standard grace period is 10 minutes, for in and then for out ; but if it was still in the space at 3 hours + 14:21 then you exceeded the coming in grace period.

If the in-bay photo was off CCTV, that might have been just before you got back to the car, and hence had only a total of say 3 hours 15 on the site. Maybe you were there longer, but I'm guessing if you were, they'd have found an exit ANPR even later.
I'm not sure if grace periods are "transferable", meaning 2 x 10 minutes could allow 15 + 5 minutes. If it would, they'll probably deny the exit ANPR exists.

Umkomaas

ash_iq wrote: »

Hi,
Yes it was ANPR on way in and a picture of my car in the parking space, 14:04 41 coming in and then a picture of my car stationary in its space at 17:19:02

Not normal to have ANPR photos in and out and parking bay photos. Are you sure?

I overstayed the 3 hr limit by 15 minutes
Quote:
14:04 41 coming in and then a picture of my car stationary in its space at 17:19:02
I think the standard grace period is 10 minutes, for in and then for out ; but if it was still in the space at 3 hours + 14:21 then you exceeded the coming in grace period.

If the in-bay photo was off CCTV, that might have been just before you got back to the car, and hence had only a total of say 3 hours 15 on the site. Maybe you were there longer, but I'm guessing if you were, they'd have found an exit ANPR even later.
I'm not sure if grace periods are "transferable", meaning 2 x 10 minutes could allow 15 + 5 minutes. If it would, they'll probably deny the exit ANPR exists.

Lots of unhelpful guesswork here. Too many 'Ifs', 'Maybes', 'I'm guessings' and 'I'm not sures'.

Geoff1963

Lots of unhelpful guesswork here.

The OP said 15 minutes, but it was 14:21 from entry to still in a bay - which isn't the same.
If the in-bay photo was manual, then it is likely that the OP stayed much longer. We need proper facts in order to give advice.

Umkomaas

Geoff1963 wrote: »

The OP said 15 minutes, but it was 14:21 from entry to still in a bay - which isn't the same.
If the in-bay photo was manual, then it is likely that the OP stayed much longer. We need proper facts in order to give advice.

So ask relevant questions to elicit the right answers, not go on a wild flight of fancy with all sorts of hypotheses.