Received Claim Form - Need help!!!

Grap3fruit

Thanks for clarifying that the cost of the ticket was £100 discounted by 40% for quick payment.

I am being taken to court as the keeper not driver. Do I deny knowing who the driver was throughout the entire case? (regardless of whether or not I was driving)

Have you got any rewords or recommendation for the defence?

Thanks for all your help Redx, much appreciated as I have absolutely no idea about any of this!!!

Redx

I am not legally trained and so rarely comment on defences unless something is obvious

we all appreciate that every newbie who asks for help has no training either , even some solicitors who come on here have learned a lot because its not a field of expertise for most of them

you are correct , you are defending this as keeper , where the paperwork was sent to the keeper, it has nothing at all to do with the driver or any windscreen ticket that was put on the windscreen for the driver to find

you are asking me questions about stuff that were in the lamilad case , where he stuck to his guns that he was not required to name the driver and its up to the claimant to prove who was driving

he was up against Jake Burgess of Excel, and won

look it up , read the transcript like I said earlier (and read his court threads on here and over on pepipoo)

dont just ask questions, do the research , especially when pointed at suitable research material

you wont find many legally trained professionals on here who can answer your legal questions

hence my signature below

claxtome

The notice to keeper was given in the right timeframe (between day 28 and 56). The next question is was the wording correct in the NTK.

Section 8 (2) of Schedule 4 specifies what the wording of the NTK in your case should contain:

The notice must—
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;
(c)state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f);
(d)if the unpaid parking charges specified in that notice to driver as required by paragraph 7(2)(c) have been paid in part, specify the amount that remains unpaid, as at a time which is—
(i)specified in the notice to keeper, and
(ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));
(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;
(f)warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (d)) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
(g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;
(h)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made;
(i)specify the date on which the notice is sent (if it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).

Does it?

Lamilad

How are there so many differences in the actual charge amount? Can I use this against them in any way?

Of course, they artificially inflate their charge with made up numbers. The only amounts they're 'allowed' to claim are the original PCN of £100, interest on the debt, the £25 filing fee, the trial fee £25 and, maybe, legal costs of £50 (depending on proof of such)

PCM generally do have pofa compliant NTKs provided it was received within 14 days after the 'contravention' (if ANPR generated) or between days 28-56 for windscreen tickets.

The problem they have is that they misrepresent the act during debt recovery stage. They, or their DCA dogs - either DR+ or Trace, usually state that the defendant's opportunity to name the driver expires 28 days after the NTK - which is completely untrue.

On this basis you could argue that their misrepresentation of pofa is not only unreasonable but tantamount to perjury (if mentioned in court documents) and removes any right they have to rely on the act

claxtome

In this case it was a windscreen ticket.
Lamilad would you suggest any amendments to their defence in terms of what can be claimed.
I was thinking of, along the lines of "under POFA schedule 4 the maximum costs the Claimant can claim is specified in the NTK" or some words to that effect.

Grap3fruit

OK I have checked the NTK and it says;

"Under the Protection of Freedoms Act, Schedule 4, you are now required to do one of the following, by not later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the date on which this notice to keeper is given:
* Pay the outstanding amount outlined to the right, if you were the driver of the vehicle, OR:
* If you were not the driver, provide us with the full name of the driver of the vehicle and their current address where a notice can be served on them. (You are also required to pass this notice to the driver)

So I am guessing that I could phrase it somewhat similar to this in my defence:

The Claimant has also incorrectly used the Protection of Freedom Act by stating that the defandants oppurtunity to name the driver expires 28 days after the Notice to Keeper. This is a misrepresentation of the Protections of Freedom Act and it is not only unreasonable but tantamount to perjury and therefore removes any right the Claimant has to rely on the act. The Defendant therefore requests the court strike out the claim.


Maybe not worded correctly... I'm not very good at wording!

Umkomaas

tantamount to perjury

I’d check out exactly what ‘perjury’ is before making an accusation in court papers.

Lamilad

Indeed 'perjury' would not be the correct term.

However...

OK I have checked the NTK and it says;
"Under the Protection of Freedoms Act, Schedule 4, you are now required to do one of the following, by not later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the date on which this notice to keeper is given:
* Pay the outstanding amount outlined to the right, if you were the driver of the vehicle, OR:
* If you were not the driver, provide us with the full name of the driver of the vehicle and their current address where a notice can be served on them. (You are also required to pass this notice to the driver)

This isn't an example of them expressly stating that you cannot name the driver after 28 days. If there is such a statement it will either be in their follow up to the NTK (final reminder notice) or one of the debt recovery letters.

Although, it is misleading so if this is all you have I would still go with it but say "deliberate attempt to mislead the defendant and the court'"

Lamilad

Not sure if there is any help with this but here is a picture of the sign: i(dot)gyazo(dot)com/9ebc829cf71501ab2e07c212c1f3bcfc.png

Just post the link with http changed to hxxp (which is said repeatedly to newbies on the forum). No silly phonetics

Grap3fruit

Hi all

I decided to modify my defence after finding what I am lead to believe is a much stronger one. Please see the below and let me know if you have any suggestions as this will be handed in tomorrow at 10AM.

Many thanks in advance to anyone who can help and thanks to those who have already assisted

Statement of Defence

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: #########

Between:
Parking Control Management (UK) Limited v XXXXXXXXXX

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.

1.1 The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified thousands of similar poorly pleaded claims.

1.1a The Defendant believes the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any detailed facts or explained evidence until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

1.2 On the 20th September 2016 a relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.’

1.3 This has prejudiced the Defendant's chance to understand the cause of action in this case. On this basis, I request the court strike out the claim for want of a cause of action.

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.

2.1 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.

2.2 The Defendant undertook to appeal the unwarranted parking charge in all good faith, in the hope of resolving the dispute, including what was described by the Claimant as an 'independent' review by the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). The appeal was submitted through the online website, as advised in numerous pieces of documentation sent to the Defendant. There is no scrutiny board and IAS decisions in the public domain blatantly disregard recognised standards of law or justice and shift the burden to the consumer to prove matters outside of their knowledge and evidence, causing a significant imbalance in the rights and interests of consumers, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Defendant notes that Gladstones Solicitors Limited (Gladstones) are employed in bringing this claim. It is also noted that the directors of Gladstones, Will Hurley and John Davies, are also responsible for the IAS.

2.3 The Defendant did not receive a response to the appeal. This is a clear failure by the Claimant to engage with the Defendant in order to understand the facts and narrow the issues. Such conduct is a breach of Practice Direction – Pre action conduct and protocols and has resulted in this unnecessary and unmeritorious litigation, which is an abuse of court process and against the public interest.


Background

3 It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant was the owner of the vehicle in question.

4 It is denied that any "parking charges or indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

5 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.



Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
6 It is not admitted that the Claimant has contractual or other lawful authority to make contracts with residents at this location, and/or to bring proceedings against the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof. Further, and in the alternative, the Defendant avers that the Claimant requires the permission the owner of the relevant land - not merely another contractor or site agent not in possession - in order to commence proceedings.

7 The Claimant states that the vehicle in question was parked in a "restricted area". This is denied.
7.1 The driver parked the vehicle during the hours of complete darkness and did not see any signs
7.2 Even if any signs were present they were not illuminated meaning even if the driver did see them (which he/she did not) they would not have been able to read an unlit sign in full darkness
7.3 A sign which cannot be seen or read by a consumer cannot form a contract. This is trite law and firmly established in the Consumer Rights Act 2015

8 In the photographic evidence provided by the Claimant online, it is very apparent that the ticketing officer at the time had taken advantage of using flash photography and possibly changing the exposure of the photo to incorrectly show the amount of light provided in the area. This is evidenced by the fact that both the number plates (on two separate vehicles) and the taillights on the car in question appear to be reflecting a light source. Another photograph provided by the Claimant shows the front of the car, in which you can clearly see that no light source is provided in the area that the sign is located in. It also shows a more accurate representation of how dark the area is as the majority of the light from the flash of the camera is blocked by the vehicle in question.

9 The sign located near the Defendants car also appears to be bent in a direction that faces away from the driver’s view upon exiting the vehicle. This is also shown in the Claimants photographic evidence. Due to the lack of lighting and the fact the sign was bent, the Defendant does not believe that any contract would have been entered as the signage was not adequate, visible or clear. For the reasons listed above, the Defendant believes that no contract was formed.

10 It is denied that there was any breach of contract or of any relevant parking terms. The Claimant's claim is wholly misconceived.

11 The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, insofar as the Court were only willing to exempt a parking charge from falling foul of the penalty rule which would normally render it unrecoverable, in the context of a site of commercial value, it being a 'complex' case where the driver was a visitor with no prior licence or rights, and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.



Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim

12 It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

13 The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against residents, alleging 'debts' for parking at their own homes is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

14 The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges with no evidence of how this extra charge has been calculated. No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs.

15 The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors, Gladstones, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centres in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).

16 The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

17 If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.



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


Signed

Date