Court Claim Form received - advice please.

cosmic4z

Also curious, if the management company or owner disregard this letter; what are the consequence for them? Will I be able to add them to a counter-claim, or report them, or something else? Just trying to understand what leverage I have and why they would actually do something to get the ticket cancelled and claim withdrawn.

Thanks again.

cosmic4z

I now have a copy of the NTK. I've noticed it's dated only 11 days after the parking incident (no ticket was issued on the day, they have an ANPR system).

Is that okay? I read somewhere they had to wait for 28 days or something? Does that only apply in situations where a ticked is issued on the windscreen?

Thanks.

Quentin

The process for non windscreen notices like this is set out in the Newbies FAQ thread near the top of the forum

cosmic4z

Thank you for your help Quentin.

I've read and re-read that post multiple times (at least 5). I don't think it specifically address the question in my previous post. If you're suggesting it does, please accept my apologies, and I'll go re-read it once again!

EDIT:

Looks like it is mentioned in the newbies thread (had just read post #2 previously, as that's the stage I'm at). It says: "If they are a firm which alleges 'keeper liability' under the POFA 2012 (which they don't have to!) the a postal PCN must arrive by day 14 if there was no windscreen ticket.". So, as the NTK was send within 11 days, it's safe to assume it did arrive within 14 days. Therefore, I can disregard this point.

Please accept my apologies Quentin, I'm finding this whole process a little frustrating (don't imagine I'm on my own there).

Kind regards,

cosmic4z

So, here is my defence so far (it's probably not that good, I don't really know what I'm doing). I'm not sure if some of the points are worth including or not, but have done so anyway, it can always be edited down; or points can be included that I have missed.

I'm copy and pasting here, so some formatting may be missing.

---

IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [claim number]
Between
VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LTD
(Claimant)
-and-

[name of defendant]
(Defendant)

DEFENSE STATEMENT

I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

The defendant is (and was at the time of the alleged parking incident) elderly, suffering with Arthritis and Cervical Spondylosis, a long term condition causing pain and stiffness, which meets the definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010. Service providers MUST make a 'reasonable adjustment' of any arbitrary time limit, allowing for the disabled population at large, in anticipation of them needing to take longer than other able-bodied people. No such adjustment was made.

The Claim Form issued on 9/1/2018 by BW Legal Services Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “BW Legal Services Limited”.


I submit that I was not afforded any method by which to appeal, nor any information about complaints procedures to the landowner. This omission prevented me from being able to get this charge cancelled by the Retailer, a right that I believe existed as an exemption clause for shoppers written into the landowner contract/retailer user manual but a material fact which is withheld from consumers. If I could have appealed to POPLA or had been informed that the Retailer/landowner could deal with such complaints and cancel charges, I would have done so.

In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. No evidence of such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant. A Managing Agent is not the Landowner.

The Claimant’s representatives, BW Legal, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 to £264.66. I submit the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts, as part of their ‘robo-claim’ litigation model, in an attempt at double recovery, circumventing the Small Claims costs rules. Further, BW Legal appear to be in contravention of the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.

Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, a registered keeper can only be held liable for the sum on a properly-served Notice to Keeper (NTK). Vehicle Control Services Ltd do not use compliant NTKs, failed to serve one and cannot hold a registered keeper liable.

The claimant has not declared if the claim is against the keeper of driver of the vehicle; or provided any evidence of who the driver was. The event was so long ago, the Claimant is wasting the court's time with speculative claims that neither identify the driver nor clearly explain the cause of action.

The claimant has not provided any evidence of the car being parked for over 2 hours. They have only produced ANPR timestamps for entry to, and exit from, the car park; which indicate an overstay (of 44 minutes).

The defendant was harassed and intimidated by a sequence of ‘debt collection’ letters, at a time when no actual debt has been established.

A ‘debt recovery’ letter which the defendant received was addressed to the wrong person (wrong first name).

The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

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

---

---

(Defendant) (Date)

Coupon-mad

Looks like it is mentioned in the newbies thread (had just read post #2 previously, as that's the stage I'm at). It says: "If they are a firm which alleges 'keeper liability' under the POFA 2012 (which they don't have to!) the a postal PCN must arrive by day 14 if there was no windscreen ticket.". So, as the NTK was send within 11 days, it's safe to assume it did arrive within 14 days. Therefore, I can disregard this point.

You miss the fact that the WORDING of VCS' Notice to Keepers are not POPLA compliant, never mind the dates.

And never assume. Was ''day 11'' when they posted it (the non-POFA Notice) a Thursday? If so, it's not even deemed delivered until the following Monday, or later if that was a Bank Holiday of course.

cosmic4z

Thank you Coupon-Mad.

Should I add to the defence, the fact that their NTK is non-compliant with POPLA requirements (though I'm not sure how), and was possibly sent 14 days after the event?

Other than that, is my defence okay?

Thanks.

KeithP

cosmic4z wrote: »

Thank you Coupon-Mad.

Should I add to the defence, the fact that their NTK is non-compliant with POPLA requirements (though I'm not sure how), and was possibly sent 14 days after the event?

Other than that, is my defence okay?

Thanks.

I think you mean "their NTK is non-compliant with PoFA requirements".

You say you are not sure how the NtK is non-compliant.
To address that you need to go through Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act, there's a link to that in post #1 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread, and check off every line of your NtK against it.

Coupon-mad

But at this stage it is enough for the OP to just say their NTK is non-compliant with POFA Schedule 4 '28 days/keeper liability' prescribed wording, and was not received by the defendant within 14 days.

cosmic4z

Thank you Coupon-Mad.

Looking back over my defence, I think I've already covered it in point 6, which I've now reworded to include mention of the 14 days.

My updated defence is here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/66xya40sjii8hmc/defence%20points.pdf?dl=0

I've not included any details (names, case number, etc). Should I also copy and paste the text directly in to the thread?

Could someone please check it over, is there anything I need to change before sending it off?

Many Thanks,