Minster baywatch

KeithP

Please correct the many typos in your post.

It is impossible to understand.

For example, what does "...sent an email to restrict my defence form" mean?

Blossoms17

This is a nightmare, I feel like just paying it but it goes against my principles with these crooks. I'm bogged down with work and study and not got any time to deal with any of this, and after reading the thread about appearing in court is the last think I want to do ����what on earth is my defence if they can do this after 13 minutes?

Redx

you are trying to run before you can walk, and trying to fit a weeks work into 5 minutes

try answering the questions

so the AOS has been done , good

this issue about what you are trying to say about the defence is making no sense whatsoever

people cannot help you until you slow down and do it step by step, so take a chill pill and start explaining stuff PROPERLY instead of one liner answers

did you leave the defence box totally blank ? (on the MCOL site)

and have you emailed a template defence to the CCBC email address ? or not

we are all hoping that you have done NOTHING AT ALL except the AOS online

if all you have done is the AOS online , then you have 28 days or so to sort out the defence

we can get to the next stage once we know where you are up to and we hope you have not done something you should not have done

I already told you they can issue a parking charge for anything over 10 minutes (read what you have been told)

its done , get over it , move on and let people help you step by step once you have explained yourself properly

if you are using a phone , STOP, and use a laptop, not a phone

KeithP

Blossoms17 wrote: »

This is a nightmare, I feel like just paying it but it goes against my principles with these crooks. I'm bogged down with work and study and not got any time to deal with any of this, and after reading the thread about appearing in court is the last think I want to do ����what on earth is my defence if they can do this after 13 minutes?

And the last thing I want to do is try and guess what you are trying to say.

You've obviously got far more important things to do. So have I.

Good luck.

System

Would it help to know that you are likely bang to rights on this one and the PPC are not being crooks?

If you look at it from this viewpoint then the issue is not whether you should pay but whether you can avoid paying by taking the advice here to construct a good but standard defence from the previous work.

Blossoms17

Ok I've calmed down a bit today and can see the wood for the trees, I've done an AOS but not sent a defence as yet. I've drafted this

Defence
Firstly, the driver is currently unknown and the statement of particulars in the claim categorically claims the driver is known.

The parking notices have been sent to an address where I did not reside as I was working and living temporarily in York at the time which created an issue with access to the information and only received this information on 8th Dec 2017 when I returned, Itherefore not allowing any right to appeal prior to court action.

Your charge is for an alleged 'breach of the terms and conditions' and yet clearly it is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss as the vehicle is shown driving into the entrance of the car park and leaving 13 minutes later with no evidence that it was even parked. As such, this is a breach of the BPA Code of Practice. As no loss has been established whatsoever, this charge is also unenforceable in contract law and indeed the Office of Fair trading stated to your Trade Body the BPA Ltd that a 'parking charge' is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists. Parking charges cannot include tax-deductible business costs for running a parking company, such as site signage and maintenance, staff employment, membership fees, postage, etc. It should not be recoverable as it is being enforced purely as a penalty.

Your signage is not sufficient to create a contract between Minster Baywatch and the motorist because it is so extensive and required at least ten minutes to read the small print at the bottom of the sign which seems to be the only place where the driver could get the opportunity to discover the car park is controlled by wardens or camera, there is no time limit outlined in this small print and it is not in the drivers eyeline on arrival. It entailed the driver getting out of the vehicle to read it properly. Not only does this, once again, breach the BPA Code of Practice on mandatory entrance signs but it fails to create any contract at all when a driver does not see the terms before parking.

There has been no opportunity to appeal his charge due to circumstances or any attempt at mediation, and in addition, no POPLA code has been supplied to date.

I would suggest that this matter is resolved using the bespoke ADR for private parking, to save wasted costs and the court's precious time. The above points a) - c) can be considered to represent my appeal, If you use the court, then you will incur further costs, including £15 filing fee, £25 hearing fee, and approximately £250 as costs payable for your legal representative from LPC Law or other firm.

Failure to agree to my offer of both parties reaching a decision would be evidence of Minster Baywatch failing to mitigate alleged loss which I wish to draw to the court's attention along with lack of opportunity to to follow the correct appeals procedure due to circumstances outlined. I also wish to invite the Judge to apply the principle of Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 576 regarding costs.

I completely oppose any costs over £27 which seems reasonable for the administration costs incurred so far and would wish to request that the court to stay the case and insist on a POPLA decision.

I've stolen a few ideas as I really don't understand all the legalities but it's a start I think.

Blossoms17

I've done the AOS and drafted a defence as below. I was in a complete stress and panic yesterday as trying to resolve it in one go whilst working. Really appreciate your help. Now I have a form N9a which was sent with the claim form but presume my defence statement needs to go to the court via email within 28 days.is that correct? I don't have access to a laptop at the moment so apologies for auto corrections that may occur. Thanks

Coupon-mad

What will happen if I just ignore it?

You would get no loans, credit, maybe not even a new phone contract, for six years. You do NOT want a CCJ, so defend.

You can win this, we see posters win 99% of the time. Even if you lost you'd get no CCJ if you then paid. BUT NOT NOW.

You appear not to have read ANY defences, because you've just written 'your charge' but you are meant to be writing this from 'the Defendant' addressed to the court for a Judge to read. It's not the Judge's charge.


You need to set it out properly. Here's a defence I wrote yesterday, post #19 as 'SchoolRunMum':

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=117120

and a final defence here with input from bargepole and Southpaw, in post #32 (NOT THE EARLIER DRAFT)

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...17282&st=20

Both end with a nod towards non-compliant PAP (pre action protocol) and woeful POC (particulars of claim) by Gladstones or other robo-claim solicitors, with these two being the last points:

The Claimant has not complied with the relevant Pre-Action Protocol. The Defendant has not had the opportunity to comply.

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 believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Please use the two examples I showed you and adapt it to suit. If you are at Uni I am sure you can complete this task.

Show us version #2 (bin the first one) and we'll give you more feedback till it's good to go by email to the CCBCAQ email address. You can do this!

Blossoms17

Defence Statement

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief claimed in the sum of £237 or at all, for the reasons stated in the following paragraphs.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant is/was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question on the material date.

3. On the material date, the Defendant stopped the vehicle at a convenient point on the car park to read the signage close to the entrance and make a decision about parking but then drove off after which took 13 minutes in all.

4. On any reasonable construction, this action did not constitute 'parking'.

5. It is, therefore, denied that the Defendant was under any obligation to display a permit at any time, or to pay penalties to a third party (the Claimant) for non-display of same. There are a number of authorities which support this position.

6. The Defendant has no knowledge of whether there is any contractual arrangement between the Claimant and the owner or occupier of the land in question, or, if such a contractual arrangement exists, what the terms of that arrangement are. The Claimant is therefore required to prove that it has the necessary standing to bring this claim.

7. It is denied that a contract was formed between the Claimant and the Defendant. This is because no offer was communicated by the Claimant, effectively or at all, that was capable of acceptance by the Defendant, expressly, by conduct, or at all.

8. The Claimant’s signs are positioned in an awkward place for any driver to read all of it whilst still driving and therefore could not reasonably be expected to comply with different terms of parking claimed by the claimant. The signage is very poor. Font sizes very small also not within eye line of a driver entering the car park subsequently meaning the driver would need to get out of the vehicle to read it and there is a busy road in front of the sign. The driver would need to drive onto the car park to be safe.

9. No PCN was ever received, as The dependent was residing in York due to work commitments and it went straight to court claim and and no evidence has been presented prior to the court claim.

10. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed. If, which is denied, a contract was in place between the Claimant and the Defendant and the Defendant breached a term of that contract it is denied that the Claimant's losses amount to the sum claimed. Alternatively, if, which is denied, a contract was in place between the Claimant and the Defendant under which the Defendant is liable to pay the sum claimed to the Claimant it is denied that the sum due under the contract is the sum claimed.

11. The Claimant did not serve a compliant ‘Letter Before County Claim’, on the Defendant, as mandated by the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct. Further to this, the Particulars of Claim as pleaded in the N1 Claim Form are extremely sparse, and do not disclose a proper Cause of Action, but instead offer a menu of choices. As such, the Particulars do not comply with CPR 16.4, and the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers.

12. The Claimant has not complied with the relevant Pre-Action Protocol. The Defendant has not had the opportunity to comply.

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

Blossoms17

I have taken a photo of the signage.