Court claim deadline tomorrow

maria212

In #2 are you saying the defendant has not received a LBCCC or received one that was not compliant?

No other letters were received before the court claim letters, no ntk or anything I dont even know if they have photographic evidence

3. Im not sure what should I check?

5, essentially there are no cameras or anpr, they have sporadic signs only on one side of the road. The ticket was attached to windscreen i will attach pics I dont know how to on this site from my phone!

Also how do i get their email address should i call the court?

[Deleted User]

5, essentially there are no cameras or anpr

So remove the section about ANPR from your defence. Just because a template has the makings of a good defence does not mean you should follow it slavishly - it needs to reflect YOUR facts, so check it!

Lamilad

No other letters were received before the court claim letters, no ntk or anything I dont even know if they have photographic evidence!

Has the defendant moved from the address to which the vehicle was registered at the time of the 'contravention'?

3. Im not sure what should I check?

NEWBIES thread..... And/or Google it!

Also how do i get their email address should i call the court?

Why do you want to email them?

Coupon-mad

You mean the ccbcaq email? Obviously by Googling 'CCBC email' or 'CCBC contact us'.

maria212

Lamilad wrote: »

Wed is not the 28th day but it is the deadline as it's the 33rd day - if, as you say, the issued date on the claim form is 4th Aug.

You must submit your defence by 4pm wed. Send it by email then your have time to make any suggested edits.

This is why I asked where to get email address, did you mean email or mcol online?

maria212

Lamilad wrote: »

Has the defendant moved from the address to which the vehicle was registered at the time of the 'contravention'?

no hasnt moved address at all


NEWBIES thread..... And/or Google it!


Why do you want to email them?

as per previous you suggested email them?

maria212

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You mean the ccbcaq email? Obviously by Googling 'CCBC email' or 'CCBC contact us'.

Lamilad wrote: »

In #2 are you saying the defendant has not received a LBCCC or received one that was not compliant?

Are you sure about #3? Have you done the necessary research to confirm they have not complied with PoFA?

5(c)(I) doesn't make sense

Is 5(c)(ii) correct? Was this an ANPR generated pcn or one attached to the windscreen by a parking attendant?

Does the defendant deny being the driver? The defence is ambiguous on this aspect.


Is this true?

maria212 wrote: »

In #2 are you saying the defendant has not received a LBCCC or received one that was not compliant?

No other letters were received before the court claim letters, no ntk or anything I dont even know if they have photographic evidence

3. Im not sure what should I check?

5, essentially there are no cameras or anpr, they have sporadic signs only on one side of the road. The ticket was attached to windscreen i will attach pics I dont know how to on this site from my phone!

Also how do i get their email address should i call the court?

Hi All, I have tried to do a second draft its still a bit daunting and confusing please let me know your thoughts


In the (Court name)
Claim number____

Between:

Company name v defendant name.

Defence Statement

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

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

1) This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol and as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.

2) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.

3. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of 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.

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 not 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 £237.23 for outstanding debt and damages

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 licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

5. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

a) The Claimant is to put strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.

b) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.

c) Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:


(ii) 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.
(iii) It is believed the signage 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 authorized party using the premises as intended.

(iv) 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.
(v) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
d) BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(i) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font, size, lighting or positioning.
(ii) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
(iii) there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

6. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
It is believed that the claimant do not hold a legitimate contract at this venue. 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. 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.

8. 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.

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 inform the defendant of the original parking offence and fine, moving to court proceedings against the defendant with no prior notice.
(b) The signage informing motorists of the terms and conditions on the road in question does not meet the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice. The driver did not observe any signage on entering the car park or from the position where the car was parked or during walking from the car to the building opposite so I conclude your signs are not clear and no contract was formed with the driver.


I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection

maria212

Also Im not sure whether all the Beavis stuff is relevant or I should remove?

maria212

Are you sure about #3? Have you done the necessary research to confirm they have not complied with PoFA?

I've read into this and it states In the

8. A notice to keeper must be served not ealier than 28 days after, and not more than 56 days after, the service of that notice to driver.

9. A notice to keeper has been given that contains the following mandatory information:
- Which car the ticket relates to
- What land the car was parked on
- The period the car was parked
- Advise that the driver is liable for the parking charge and the amount and that it has not been paid in full
- State whether a notice to the driver was given either to the driver or placed on the vehicle and if so to repeat the information in that notice about paying the parking charge and when
- Specify the outstanding amount of the parking charge and of the maximum additional costs they may seek to recover, and of the dispute resolution arrangements
- Invite the registered keeper to pay the outstanding parking charge or, if he was not the driver, to provide the name and address of the driver and to pass a copy of the notice on to that driver
- Identify the “creditor” who is legally entitled to recover the parking charge
- Warn the keeper that if the parking charges remains outstanding after 28 days and the name and address of the driver has not been given, or otherwise known to the person entitled to the parking charge, that “creditor” will be entitled to recover the parking charge from the registered keeper.
- Details of the discount for payment within 14 days,
- Date of the notice

As they didnt serve a ntk they are not compliant? however im slightly worried they will claim it was sent and lost in post and get away with this

Does the defendant deny being the driver? The defence is ambiguous on this aspect.
I understand from the other posts its best to deny being the driver of the vechicle how could I clarify this ?

DoaM

They're highly unlikely to have obtained proof of posting for any NTK, so how do they prove it was sent?