Parking charge paid by Car Rental Company

NotSoLuckyLuke

On Hire Agreement is stated
GB Vehicle Hire B'ham (no LTD)
on Claim Form GB Vehicle Hire Birmingham LTD
But address for both of them is the same. I assume it must be GB Vehicle Hire Birmingham LTD then.

kryten3000

The point Coupon Mad is getting at is the company that you signed an agreement with might not be the same legal entity that is claiming against you.

It may have the same address, staff and directors but if it is different then the defence would be different.

pappa_golf

have you got or can you find a company number for this company , as a simple search under GB Vehicle Hire B'ham and GB Vehicle Hire Birmingham LTD shows no info , even there website (if correct company) fails to reveal company number info

NotSoLuckyLuke

I will call them tomorrow and will ask them for their Company Number. If anyone of you is interested I can send scanned hire agreement and T&C.

pappa_golf

I would have thought that the hire agreement and T&C. would have included the company number (as required by law) clearly shown

NotSoLuckyLuke

Have VAT Reg No. 925 3756 08 on the Hire Agreement.

This car was hired for me by my boss I will ask her is she has anything at her documents.

pappa_golf

Yes, valid VAT number

Member State GB
VAT Number GB 925375608
Date when request received 2017/12/10 19:08:56
Name GB VEHICLE HIRE (BIRMINGHAM) LTD
Address 26A SHORT HEATH ROAD
ERDINGTON
BIRMINGHAM

B23 6JP
Consultation Number

but yet the full company name comes back to https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06394656

pappa_golf

umm a search on b23 6jp and 26a short heath rd throws some wierdos

one vof the addresses is a company called phone number lottery https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10793555/officers with a director called Carlton Andrew BECKFORD which then links back to https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06394656

NotSoLuckyLuke

Actually i wonder if my details were not provided to Elite Management Midlands Ltd by Gb Vehicle Hire. So Elite can issue some bogus pcn and both companies can stack on admin fees etc.

Coupon-mad

I am in two minds as to whether you should submit a defence yet, seeing as you are saying the claim form had the words that the POC would follow within 14 days, and no POC have arrived.

The difficulty in my mind is that you've completed the AOS, despite there being no POC, so do you now have to proceed with a defence, or do you wait? See what other trusted long-term regulars (e.g. those with more then 500 posts who have been advising here daily for six months or more) say about this. Johnersh or LoadsofChildren123?



When you are ready to defend (see what others say first) you should reformat this in Times Roman 12 point, with 1.5 line spacing.

IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE

CLAIM No. DXXXXXXX

Between:

GB Vehicle Hire Birmingham Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

Mr XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX (Defendant)


__________

DEFENCE
__________

1. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought, or at all, for the reasons stated in the following paragraphs.

2. It will be common ground that this claim arises following the Claimant's decision to pay an alleged 'unpaid parking charge' and the Claimant is seeking to recover that sum from the Defendant.

2.1 It is denied that the Claimant had any lawful grounds in terms of any liability, nor any contractual reason nor authorisation, to pay the hugely-inflated and unevidenced charge.

2.2 It is further denied that the hire company's terms & conditions authorise them or any other party to pay a private parking charge, effectively by proxy, in lieu of the hirer.

2.3 Even if it is held that the relevant car hire terms do allow payment of a £100 parking charge by the hire company without allowing the hirer the right to appeal/dispute the matter, it is averred that:

(i) the added charges (by the debt collector and by the hire company) do not represent any administrative costs and are unrecoverable penalties
(ii) only the Defendant was liable to dispute or pay the charge, and in any case
(iii) the Claimant - a private limited company - is not a party to the hire agreement.


The Claimant named on the claim form had no contract with the Defendant

3. Whilst it is admitted that the Defendant's employer hired the vehicle in question around the material time in April 2017, the car lease agreement was in the name of a different legal entity, namely 'GB Vehicle Hire (Birmingham)'.

3.1 The hire documents made no mention of any company number nor did they describe the hire firm as ...'Ltd'.

3.2 In view of this, it is averred that the Defendant had no relevant contract (and cannot have breached any contract) with the Claimant company identified on the Claim form as 'GB Vehicle Hire Birmingham Ltd'.

3.3 As such, the Defendant's primary defence is that the Claimant (named as a private limited company) has no cause of action against the Defendant.


The Claimant had no reason to pay the charge by proxy, having transferred liability to the Defendant

4. Without prejudice to his primary defence above, the Defendant avers that he was not issued with any parking tickets whatsoever during the car lease period of approximately one month; nothing was attached to the windscreen at any point and nor were any letters received, until October 2017.

5. The Defendant received a letter from a debt collector 'ZZPS' dated 23rd October 2017, on behalf of a parking firm. This letter referred for the first time, to a hitherto unknown matter of an alleged 'unpaid parking charge' from April, relating to the hired car.

5.1 This letter stated that they were pursuing £172 for "unauthorised parking" at a place where the Defendant has no recollection of parking the vehicle.

5.2 The Defendant believes that the hire company must have provided the parking company with his data (name and address of the hirer). Apart from the inexplicable and prejudicial delay in this action, the Defendant has no issue with his data being provided, this being the correct procedure to transfer potential liability, as set out under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (the POFA).

5.3 It is not known what other letters were sent/exchanged with the hire company before October, nor is it known why the hire firm omitted to forward any such letters (e.g. the Notice to Keeper/Hirer) to the Defendant and appear to have waited for more than 6 months to follow the correct procedure (BVRLA/BPA-approved in a 2013 Memorandum of Understanding), to finally name me as hirer.

5.4 Under the POFA, once liability has been transferred by a hire company to the hirer, any future liability for the hire company is fully discharged and any private parking charge is a matter for that hirer to pay or appeal/defend. Thus the company which had provided the hire car (named as 'GB Vehicle Hire Birmingham' on the hire documents) had no further business or liability in the matter from that moment, regardless of whether the parking firm or their agents wrote to them again.

5.5 Thus the alleged parking charge was solely the Defendant's business to either dispute, defend or pay, from the point at which it is believed liability was finally transferred by the hire firm, around October 2017. The Defendant duly contacted ZZPS for evidence and photographs of the purported ''unauthorised parking event'' and has received no reply. It is further averred that the hire firm neglected to seek any such evidence.

5.6 The inexplicable delay by the hire firm in naming the Defendant as the hirer has caused significant detriment, in that the Defendant has missed (and in fact been denied) the right to appeal.

5.7 Had the hire firm provided the Defendant's data in a timely manner in April/May 2017 on receipt of the parking firm's first Notice, the Defendant could have appealed against the parking charge and the reasonable expectation is that the matter would have been won by the Defendant at POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals). The original parking firm is a BPA AOS member, who are known not to follow due process regarding compliance with the POFA relating to hired vehicles. As such, all appeals to POPLA on that basis that are in the public domain have been seen to be upheld in favour of the hirer, and all charges appealed by hirers in the proper manner are cancelled.

5.8 The Defendant was denied that right by the apparent inaction and procrastination of the hire company, and the Claimant is put to strict proof to the contrary.

6. One week after the Defendant received the ZZPS letter, and before any action could be taken to dispute it, the Claimant unreasonably took it upon themselves to pay the sum demanded, without recourse to nor consulting with the Defendant, who was the only person liable to decide whether to pay, dispute or defend the purported charge.

7. It is not for the Defendant to have to reimburse the Claimant for an erroneous decision by them (or in fact by another legal entity known as 'GB Vehicle Hire Birmingham') to pay an invoice for which they were not liable.

7.1 Their own records will show that the hire firm had already discharged any potential liability by naming the Defendant as the hirer. It is averred that they paid the sum demanded without question or authorisation from the Defendant and without seeking legal advice, due to their own misguided concern at receiving what they later described as a 'court letter' (which the Defendant has not seen).

8. If the Claimant was concerned about the ZZPS/Wright Hassall letters (a well-known chain of debt demands, and not a 'court letter') they should simply have passed them to the Defendant. Good practice would have been to write to remind the debt collectors that liability had already been discharged on a certain date, and to take the matter up with the Defendant instead.


Failure to comply with the pre-action protocol, and lack of any Particulars of Claim

9. The Claimant has not complied with the relevant Pre-Action Protocol. As a result, the Defendant has not had the opportunity to comply, due to not being served with a compliant Letter Before Claim (LBC) with any accompanying evidence and/or mandatory Reply Forms. Nor was the Defendant given the required 30 days to respond to any LBC, as required under the October 2017 pre-action protocol for debt claims.

10. Notwithstanding the fact that the Claimant (Limited company) is the wrong legal entity with no contract and no cause of action, it is also noted that no Particulars of Claim have been served, and no evidence has been provided to the Defendant that could lead to an informed decision regarding a defence.

10.1 The very brief words on the claim form lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant trusts that the Court will agree and may exercise discretion to utilise its case management powers to strike the claim out as having no prospects of success.

10.2 In the alternative, the Court is respectfully invited to order this Claimant to provide full and detailed particulars and specific evidence to support any cause of action and to demonstrate their purported interest in this matter, and to allow the Defendant (a litigant-in-person for whom English is not their first language, and who is relying upon third party assistance) a reasonable time to add to this defence without cost or detriment.

10.3 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 in the missing Particulars of Claim. The Defendant should have the opportunity to consider the full particulars/evidence, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this Defence.

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.



.......................................
(Defendant)


......................
(Date)

The above is too long, written off the cuff but I can't be concise to save my life!

Constructive criticism invited from trusted long-term regular posters, and comments about the fact the AOS has been done, despite no POC being served yet?