I missed the date to response to Claim Form

TRUTHSEEKER

Also, under paragraph 8&9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, it states there should be a NTK (notice to the keeper) sent to the registered owner. I am writing to inform you this was not sent to me as the registered owner of the vehicle in question.

May i write just;
NTK was not to se to me...

KeithP

dziugaso wrote: »

Also, under paragraph 8&9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, it states there should be a NTK (notice to the keeper) sent to the registered owner. I am writing to inform you this was not sent to me as the registered owner of the vehicle in question.

May i write just;
NTK was not to se to me...

Re-read post#5.

TRUTHSEEKER

I meant to write like below, is it OK?;


"Liability for this claim is not admitted. There was no notice to driver applied to the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident.
Also, under paragraph 8&9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, it states there should be a NTK (notice to the keeper) sent to the registered owner. Defender admits that the NTK was not sent to the registered owner of the vehicle.

KeithP

dziugaso wrote: »

I meant to write like below, is it OK?;


"Liability for this claim is not admitted. There was no notice to driver applied to the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident.
Also, under paragraph 8&9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, it states there should be a NTK (notice to the keeper) sent to the registered owner. Defender admits that the NTK was not sent to the registered owner of the vehicle.

Maybe, maybe not.

What don't you like about the wording that was kindly supplied to you in post#5?

TRUTHSEEKER

Thanks, Keithp for your advice!
I got confused now, cos in the post#5 i don't see any corrections given for this text paragraph!

And Coupon-mad gave me wording but I did include it in paragraph #1 :
“
1. This Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol:

(a) There was no compliant [I wil put insted of complaint] ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction."

But what is about this paragraph:


"Liability for this claim is not admitted. There was no notice to driver applied to the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident.
Also, under paragraph 8&9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, it states there should be a NTK (notice to the keeper) sent to the registered owner. Defender admits that the NTK was not sent to the registered owner of the vehicle."

Do i have to skip it or modify ?

Coupon-mad

What's wrong with my post #5? I thought it was clear, I am telling you to say this:

Liability for this claim is not admitted. There was no notice to driver applied to the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident and no Notice to Keeper was served or received by the Defendant.

TRUTHSEEKER

All good, Thanks!
I found an email address of CCBC in google,
County Court Business Centre (CCBC): ccbc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
is that I have to send my signed defense letter? And do i need to use any form from my CLAIM FORM and email along with a letter?
So,
I have this final version, is it ok?:

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: _xx__

Between:

Gladstones solicitors v _[my name and surname]__

Defence!Statement

Dear sir/madam,
As the defendant and registered owner of the vehicle [….] I am writing TO DEFEND AGAINST ALLEGATION which was received on 17 JUL on behalf UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED.



Liability for this claim is not admitted. There was no notice to driver applied to the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident and no Notice to Keeper was served or received by the Defendant.


It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

However, the Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant on the following grounds:-

1. This Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol:

(a) There was no complaint ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.

(b) The Claim form Particulars of Claim 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 original charge was, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The vague particulars of claim disclosed no clear cause of action.
c) Any parking terms or details of a 'parking charge' penalty are illegible in hours of dusk or darkness. The Defendant contends that there is a lack of entrance signage, contrary to the IPC Code of Practice, and will bring evidence to the hearing of an inadequate, small font-size and unlit notice-board on the left, not in view of a driver's seat in dark and rainy conditions, as was the case on the evening in question.

2.The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not been complied with. The registered keeper is unaware of the PCN and was not the driver, as such the keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time/with mandatory wording.

3. Notwithstanding that the Claimant claims no right to pursue the Defendant as the registered keeper under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if it cannot identify the driver.

4. 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 license to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

5. The signage on and around the site in question was small, hardly visible for driver on left side of the entrance to the parking, unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the BPA at the time and committed to following its requirements. Therefore no contract has been formed with the driver to pay the amount demanded by UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.

6. It is denied that the Claimant has the authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED


a) UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED is not the lawful occupier of the land.
b) Absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorization stemming from 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 locus stand to bring this case.

7. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.

8. The Defendant asked for copies of all photographs and letters relating to the case, from the Claimant’s debt collector agent, and none of this was supplied at all:
a) A request to explain if UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED is making a claim as an agent of the landowner or making the claim as an occupier in their own right.
b) A request to explain if the amount claimed by UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED is a genuine pre estimate of loss for a breach of contract or a contractual sum
c) A request to provide copies of the signs on which UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED rely and confirm the signs were in situ on the date of the event. Also to provide the date the signs were installed.
d) A request to confirm that the signs were at the entrance to the site on the date in question. Also to confirm that the signs meet the British Parking Association's Code of Practice Appendix B (Entrance signs) or the Independent Parking Committee’s Schedule 1.

e) A request to provide a copy of the PCN terms and conditions

f) A request to provide copies of any letters sent, including the original Notice to Keeper.

g) A request for a full breakdown of the amount of the claim and how the amount was derived.

h) A request to provide if there were any changes to the amount claimed owed, and what was the basis for this change.

i) A request to find out how keeper details were obtained.

j) A request for reasons why the keeper has liability.

9) The charge is an unenforceable penalty, neither based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss nor any 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. For this claim the penalty rule is still engaged, so can be clearly distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was ‘entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes for the following reasons:
a) The Claimant has no commercial justification
b) The Claimant did not follow the BPA Code of Practice
c) The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
d) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.

10. The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. Even if they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "Legal Representatives Costs". These cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court regardless of the identity of the driver.
11. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.
12. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.
13. The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success. Alternatively, the Defendant requests the court to order the Claimant to provide Further and Better Particulars of Claim.

I believe that the facts stated in this Statement of Defence are true.”
Date..... Signuture:...............

TRUTHSEEKER

Ah...and I will fix COMPLIANT instead of COMPLAINT

Coupon-mad

Is Google broken? You've managed to find the wrong email address.

https://courttribunalfinder.service.gov.uk/courts/county-court-business-centre-ccbc

Email

Claim responses & directions: ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

And do i need to use any form from my CLAIM FORM

No. Just email your signed & dated defence, and your covering email just needs the claim number and the words 'urgent - defence' in the subject line.

TRUTHSEEKER

I have sent it to CCBC, I got confirmation reply.
now just need to keep fingers crossed they'll accept this defense.
Thanks for all for the help!!!!