I missed the date to response to Claim Form

TRUTHSEEKER

.......Liability for this claim is not admitted. There was no notice to driver applied to the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident. from GS ws i see thatthey haave picture that ticked was fixed on the car, but me as RK haven't seen and didn't reveive to my address
Also, you should be aware 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.


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 noticeboard 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 driiver 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. I have seen a contarct with landnowner and UCPML
b) A request to explain if the amount claimed by UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED is for 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 strikeout 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 is true.”

TRUTHSEEKER

I still digging in a driver and RK matter.
In the NTK which they have sent to the old address but in the same notice is written that WE HAVE REQUESTED YOUR DETAILS FROM DVLA AS THE REGISTERED KEEPER OF VEHICLE. But DVLA had my new address!
And If i was not a driver I have to pass this notice to him and supply the details of the driver.
And cos I didn't supply they treat me further reliable as a driver to pay charger.

In their WS the defendant is as the driver cos I didn't reveal driver they asking the court to conclude that keeper was a driver..

Al that seems like walking on the "thin ice". How do I need to put all that right way to sound for the judge that they're failure here?
There are few pharagrafs 15-19 , how to put all these in my WS?

Also i got these IRRELEVANT DEFENCE POINTS:


Distinguishing your case from Beavis: The fact that Parking Eye paid £1,000 a week to operate in that case makes no difference at all, the arrangements between landowner and PPC are not relevant, as has been ruled by the higher courts. You need to concentrate on things that make your case substantially different, otherwise you're unlikely to win. how to work out these!?

I didn't see the signs: Unless you can demonstrate, with evidence, that the signage in the car park was obscured, printed in a tiny font, high up on poles or otherwise unreadable, this is a rubbish argument. The signs are there to be seen, and you should have seen them. Are my video and pictures are can suppot about badly seen singage ?

Coupon-mad

Bumping to the top for the long-term regulars to help & comment.

TRUTHSEEKER

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Bumping to the top for the long-term regulars to help & comment.

I will appreciate any drafts you can offer for my case, thanks!!!

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Bumping to the top for the long-term regulars to help & comment.

And again, it's a busy time for everyone, hopefully someone has time to look & help.

TRUTHSEEKER

Coupon-mad wrote: »

And again, it's a busy time for everyone, hopefully, someone has time to look & help.

I got last day tomorow, it wil be 14days before hearing.
If I wil send 1-2 days later WS,will it be excepted?
I don't have any WS:(
I understand its my problem but Im fully lost in all arguments and wording..at least would to like have some sample to copy and adopt...its shame to have those bloodsuckers companies to have easy bit of "cake"

Coupon-mad

Does this help?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5559809&page=2

Your WS just tells the story, saying 'I am this person and I did this, and I got this letter, and I am not liable because...etc.'

A bit like your defence only much more simple, and this is your chance to file your photos, evidence and case law with the court. DO NOT send it late. Do it tomorrow and show us what you have written and what evidence and case law (check what you said in your defence) you have found to attach.

You must also send a copy to the Claimant's solicitors (by email is best, may need 2 or 3 emails of lots of attachments).

As for the copy for your local court, make that a nice set of numbered pages with a contents page at the front, and the evidence - numbered - at the back, all grouped nicely in a cheap stationery file or ring-binder and handed in to the court in person tomorrow if you possibly can!

Think how to make it easy for the Judge to read and understand your side/evidence - you are doing brilliantly, by the way!

TRUTHSEEKER

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Does this help?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5559809&page=2


You must also send a copy to the Claimant's solicitors (by email is best, may need 2 or 3 emails of lots of attachments).

As for the copy for your local court, make that a nice set of numbered pages with a contents page at the front, and the evidence - numbered - at the back, all grouped nicely in a cheap stationery file or ring-binder and handed in to the court in person tomorrow if you possibly can!

Think how to make it easy for the Judge to read and understand your side/evidence - you are doing brilliantly, by the way!

THANK Coupon-mad
Ok, I will do my best, will sit tomorrow from very early and will post here my drafts asap..
And I can easy to get to the court in 10 min drive, so we have plenty of time ):rotfl: before 16pm..but will check online or will call to court and ask what is time at the latest I can bring docs.

TRUTHSEEKER

Hi
Can I be advised what can I say in defense againt that their WS state that :
1.UNDER SCHEDULE 4 OF PROTECTION OF FREEDOM WE HAVE RIGHT, TO RECOVER PARKING CHARGE AMNOUT FROM THE KEEPER OF THE WCHILE.
`do i need to use in WS some extactions from law here? if so what it is?
I GOT PRINTED all SCHEDUL 4 , but may just take with me to hearing or its need to use in WS?

2. I include a picture in my WS that shows my driving licence with address [which was updated in DVLA detabase 1 year before the cace] on it next to their NTK address net and it is diferente then NTK was sent, so it means that they fail to deliver the notice in time and all furder claim is
is not legel/dont comply with a law against defendent.
2.a Is there any point to mention that I had a phone call to debt recovery company and stated that I dont have any PCN received to my address as RK and not considering to do any actions til I dont have all docs send to me
How is better to put in the right form and suport this?

3. do i need mention in WS Beivis case?
4. what part of their Parking Enforcement Agreement shoving that there only can be persued driver ,not keeper? Do i need this matter to show and proof to judge,then how ?
ANY HELP WILL BE SUFICIENT,
THANKS

Umkomaas

2. I include a picture in my WS that shows my driving licence with address [which was updated in DVLA detabase 1 year before the cace] on it next to their NTK address net and it is diferente then NTK was sent, so it means that they fail to deliver the notice in time and all furder claim is

It’s not the driving licence address that PPCs access from the DVLA, it’s the address shown on your V5C (log book) document. Showing your D/L isn’t helpful to you.

If you didn’t update your V5C with the new address then the PPC cannot be found wanting in this regard.