I missed the date to response to Claim Form

TRUTHSEEKER

Umkomaas wrote: »

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.

Thanks for correctingme
But if does somehow it can help me that I did not recieve NTK or it just now looks my foult that i didnt update V5C..should i keep telling that NTK wasnt delivered to my addrss?

Umkomaas

TRUTHSEEKER wrote: »

Thanks for correctingme
But if does somehow it can help me that I did not recieve NTK or it just now looks my foult that i didnt update V5C..should i keep telling that NTK wasnt delivered to my addrss?

Yes, to your current address, because that is the truth. You give nothing away - it is for the parking company to prove its case against you.

TRUTHSEEKER

I little adopt this 2 versions of my WS, the simple version and next one more stronger lawfully loaded.
Plus will add few pictures in dark of signed and location and will have short video on hearing, Do i need to mention in WS tthe video will be availbale in hearing as support poor signed visibility in dark ?
and i not fully sure how correctly bundle all this:
! print separate lits of WS content
! put numbers of pages on top corner or somewhere else ?
! can be use both versions, first like the introduction and second as a defence?
or will it look silly?
May you please little touch them and need very busy to bring befor 4pm to court:

FIRST VERSSION:

I, ……………………., am the defendant in this case.

1.The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge there are true to the best of my information and belief.


2.I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.


3. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case. However due to the long passage of time since the alleged contraventions, I am unable to recall whether I was the driver.


4. As stated here, the dates in question are unremarkable and I therefore have no recollection of the circumstances surrounding these events.


5. I recall receiving some letters in the post from the claimant and I ignored them as I believed them to be scam letters due to the excessive amounts being claimed. and no any prior PCN have been delivered. I felt vindicated in that decision when I received no further letters or contact of any kind from the claimant on this matter.


6. I was then surprised to receive a letter before claim from the claimants representatives.
I did some research into why I may have received this and it seems the claimant and similar parking companies are submitting masses of court claims for old “parking charges” and are inappropriately using the court system as a form of debt collection.

7. The claimant subsequently was sending me packs of documents:
-claim form
-and following letters with as locations to small claims track
I was following all instruction and requirements what I found in the documents and kept it all timely and correctly filled.
- finally I received claimant Witness Statement that it says it will rely on as evidence.
One of the documents I found was copy NTK which was posted to wrong address.
pictures of the sign that it says forms the contract. The sign is mostly a wall of small font text, from which a driver in a vehicle cannot understand and therefore cannot accept the terms of.



8. The sign does not explicitly explain that a driver would be entering into a contract by the specific act of parking and neither does it clearly state who that contract would be with. This is contrary to BPA guidance. The sign submitted also claims that the charge is £90 and yet the claimant has claimed the sign creates a charge for £100. There is no evidence of any contract creating a charge of £100. Regardless, this part of the sign is in very small text and is therefore illegible.


9. Many of the documents submitted were photos of the vehicle in the car park. They show the poor lighting in the area and high placement of the signs. It cannot be expected that a driver can be able to read and accept any terms on the signage.


10. Many of the photos are also of questionable accuracy. Many of the timestamps are illegible and so it cannot be confirmed what time or day they were taken. Given the history of the claimant for falsifying photo evidence, I do not believe these photos can be relied upon for accuracy.
And I do include few images of location that showing how sight is visible at late dark time and confusing signed on parking location that shows that parking is allowed for short stay with restricted time on the day.



11. The copies of the letters that the claimant has claimed were sent to me are not compliant with the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and therefore cannot claim keeper liability. Firstly, the notices to keeper in relation to the parking charges dated “..........” do not identify who the creditor is as required by Paragraph 8(2)(h) of the POFA 2012.



12. Finally, Paragraph 8(2)(f) requires that any notice to keeper gives 28 days from the day after the day the notice was given for full payment or the details of the driver. All of the notices to keeper issued do state this but they also state that payment must be made within 28 days of the date of the notice, which is conflicting information and not compliant with POFA 2012.
Also, need to admit here again that NTK was not send to register keeper.


I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.


Signed……………………..



Dated………………………

TRUTHSEEKER

SECOND VERION:

CASE CONTENT:
1...
2...
3..
4...
5...[if it needs to make this way?]


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.!
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:-


DEFENCE

Preliminary
1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.

Background
3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings.

4. It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]!

5. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.!
5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
5.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
5.2.1. there was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
5.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.!

5.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.



Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
8. In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon!ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis!(2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
8.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.!
8.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;!
8.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
8.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in!J Spurling v Bradshaw![1956] EWCA Civ 3
8.2. The Defendant avers that the site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with!ParkingEye!distinguished.

9. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

10. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

11. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.

TRUTHSEEKER

I did the light version in 2 pages, 12 points and added 3 pictures and mentioned that I will have video in case it needs in hearing. I feel more comfortable to have WS which i can understand more myself versus that sophisticated one.

Do you think guys can I win the case with that version?
Do i need to post the same WS to GS tomorrow? I can't see any email address in the GS web .
If you idea?

Coupon-mad

I feel more comfortable to have WS which i can understand more myself versus that sophisticated one.

Good, use that version then. You must feel comfortable talking about this in court.

Do i need to post the same WS to GS tomorrow? I can't see any email address in the GS web .

Here it is:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73645224#Comment_73645224

TRUTHSEEKER

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Good, use that version then. You must feel comfortable talking about this in court.


Here it is:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73645224#Comment_73645224

I did that version WS and it seems for me so flast and, not strong to defence me..very amatoure compare with Lauras..

Is good idea to make skeleton as there is advised to deliver it to the acourt couple days before hearing, and make it more my defence finished in the skeleton form?

Can someone describe differences of these docs: defense letter, WS and skeleton?
I have seen this comparison somewhere but cant find now...

Aslso I finf this in AOS code of practice:
20.14 When you serve a Notice to Keeper, you must also
include information telling the keeper the ‘reasonable
cause’ you had for asking the DVLA for their details.
20.15 If the keeper replies to your Notice to Keeper within 28
days and gives enough details about the driver, you must
then pursue the driver for the unpaid parking charge.
20.16 If the keeper does not reply within 28 days, or refuses to
give enough details about the driver, under Schedule 4 of
POFA 2012 you are able to pursue the keeper for the
unpaid parking charge.
How we overcoming that ?
In my case NTK was sent to the old address and in fact i dont have it..they pressume they sent it and qualify, treat me in a case as a driver.

And didnt see in that link any clear answer , if is ok to post to GS my copy of WS today , day later after last day gone?

System

20.16 If the keeper does not reply within 28 days, or refuses to
give enough details about the driver, under Schedule 4 of
POFA 2012 you are able to pursue the keeper for the
unpaid parking charge.

Will correct for an AOS skewed viewpoint it is not legally correct. Have a look at the legislation to see IF the Notice to Keeper on which 20.16 pivots actually meets the requirements.

20.16 "presumes" the parking company's paperwork meets the legislative standards - which we know is not always the case.

Legislation trumps Code of Practices.

TRUTHSEEKER

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Will correct for an AOS skewed viewpoint it is not legally correct. Have a look at the legislation to see IF the Notice to Keeper on which 20.16 pivots actually meets the requirements.

20.16 "presumes" the parking company's paperwork meets the legislative standards - which we know is not always the case.

Legislation trumps Code of Practices.

May you guys know what you do you mean here, but I really dont, should I study to the deep "bone" these legislations and defend myself being ordinary person never had any law studied?

I was expecting here will be given some reasonable advice to defend myself but now I struggle even understand what advices you are giving here..i need to go through dozens of threads and links and collect a bit by bit info and put all together in one doc. and expect it will sound for judge logicaly?? maybe some smart people can do that easy but for me with limited English is extremly hard.
...bit disappointed!
BUT ANY WAY HONESTLY THANKS FOR ANY WORD ANT THE TIME YOU SPEND FOR ME HERE!

System

These issues are actually logically and legally simple. If you have decided to ask questions and quote items that are incorrect (then expect an explanation) then no wonder you are confused.

The only issues that need concern you (even if English is not your first language) are

1. Who was driving?
2. Was the parking space controlled?
3. Did the driver know the parking space was controlled?
4. What was the penalty (as it is a penalty) for breaching the rules as shown at the site on prominent signs.

That's it.

Why people here want to go to the far end of a fart in trying to twist it otherwise is actually no better that the PPC's themselves.