POPLA rejected

puglove1234

I had wrote defence* but my silly laptop kept auto correcting me!
Thank you, will do!

Redx

Christianna_Andrews wrote: »

I had wrote defence* but my silly laptop kept auto correcting me!
Thank you, will do!

hint = change your lappy keyboard settings to UK ENGLISH and not US ENGLISH, so you get the correct spellings

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 3rd September, and having done the AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 8th October 2018 to file your Defence.

Plenty of time to hone your Defence to perfection, but please don't leave it until the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described here:

1) Print your Defence.
2) Sign it and date it.
3) Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
4) Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
5) Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
6) Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
7) Wait for the Directions Questionnaire and come back here.

Coupon-mad

POPLA cannot & does not take steps to review CCTV, unless YOU had supplied it. You had no grounds to complain to POPLA if you didn't show enough evidence, and you are in danger of this claim going the same way, IMHO.

What happened with POPLA has no relevance to your defence now, either.

Statement of Defence

Nope:

DEFENCE

You will need to start again, that is not a defence. Doesn't read as one.

No ''I did this'' (that comes later at WS stage, as explained in the NEWBIES thread). Needs to be ''The Defendant did this/that...''

You also need the usual headings and a statement of truth at the end.

Have a look at bargepole's defences he has written here lately (click on his username in the member's list and show posts, and read his defences he posted last month. Shows you the style and form of writing to use.

KeithP

Please re-read post #18.

puglove1234

I have attempted this again.

Statement of Defence

The defendant is the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question. The claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the driver’s alleged breach of contract, when parking at X X car park on 29th X 2018. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant £100 for a parking charge lawfully conducted described below.
1) It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that the claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a parking charge notice in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions (the contract) by the driver of the vehicle when it was parked at X X.
2) The parking charge notice stated that the contravention as entering and leaving the car park, leaving the premises without paying. This cannot be a contravention when a driver has paid the ticket by the automatic car registration machine, with the assistance of the receptionist.
3) The receptionist at X X has admitted that the machine is slow and does not always work.
It is denied that;

A. A contract was formed, and it is further denied that any contravention of insufficient parking times was paid as the machine is automatic when entering the car registration. Having entered the car registration, £2 was requested from the machine.
B. That the defendant has not paid for parking as the defendant has evidence of an online bank statement showing £2 was paid directly to X X.
B. That there was any agreement to pay a parking charge.
C. That there were terms and conditions prominently displayed around the car park. There were no signs displayed in the bays of where the car was parked.
D. That in agreements to the parking charge there was any agreement to pay additional sums, which in any case are unsupported.

Rebuttal of claim

The defendant made all reasonable efforts to make payment for parking using an approved payment machine located at reception.
A. On arrival to the car park, there were insufficient signs in the bays to one of X X many entrances, however, the receptionist instructed the defendant to pay when leaving.
B. The defendant asked the receptionist how to pay for the parking and the receptionist walked the defendant to the machine.
C. The defendant entered the car plate registration onto the machine.
D. The machine has a total of £2 for parking and the defendant paid for this via contactless.
E. A receipt has printed from the machine to confirm payment for the ticket.

F. The failure of the machine that has lead to the parking charge notice is not the defendant’s responsibility. It is not reasonable in these circumstances for the driver to assume any more obligations for making the payment.

6. The defendant denies that they would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

A. The amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable and especially when the penalty charge notice issued by the council is set at £50 or £25 is paid within 14 days.

7. The signage of terms and conditions on this site was not displayed in the bay.
8. The defendant had requested the claimant to review CCTV equally, this was dismissed.

Summary
1. The defendant believes they parked their car in good faith using an approved payment channel and paid the fee indicated on the machine, which was £2. The defendant is confident that they were not at fault.
2. If the machine provided by the claimant did make an error and the claimant feels the cost should have been £3, then it is clear this is not the defendant’s fault. It is therefore clear that Parking Eye was that the machine was faulty and pried on vulnerable patients using the parking facilities as a money making scheme.
3. The defendant researched the matter online, and discovered that the claimants legal representative ‘Rosanna X is X XX in house solicitor. The defendant is being charged £50 for these solicitor fees. In 2014 Parking Eye filed over 30,000 claims. A total of £1,500,000 in solicitor filing costs. It is difficult to see how X X can justify this amount. This also means that Rosanna X would have to file one claim every 4 minutes every day for an 8 hour working day, without a break. I believe that X X’s filings are almost completely automated. No signature is evident just a typed name. It is believed that R. Breaks has even filed claims when the defendant has replied to the letter before claim and she confirmed that she was powerless to stop the automatic filing.
4. X X Limited are not the lawful owners occupied of the land.
5. The claimant has suffered no actual or genuine loss as a result of the alleged stay, and their charge of £100.00 is therefore not recoverable.
6. There was no complaint letter before the County Court Claim under the Practice Direction.
7. The defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automate debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.
8. The date issued on the County Court claim is incorrect in relation to parking on the private land. In fact my hospital appointment was on 29th X 2018 not 6th X 2018 as indicated on the County Court Claim.
9. The defendant invites the court to dismiss this claim as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under practice direction 16, set out by the ministry of justice and also civil procedure rules under 16.4 and to allow such defendants costs as are permissible under civil procedure rule 27.14.

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

Coupon-mad

Already said:

Statement of Defence

Nope, the heading (under the CCBC/Claimant/Defendant & Claim number headings) is:

DEFENCE

But that defence is miles better and tells the Judge about the issue.

Remove these, as none have any legs at all in a Parking case defence:

5. The claimant has suffered no actual or genuine loss as a result of the alleged stay, and their charge of £100.00 is therefore not recoverable.
6. There was no complaint letter before the County Court Claim under the Practice Direction.
7. The defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automate debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

And I would move this up, and make much more of it (and no 'me, my' in a defence):

8. The date issued on the County Court claim is incorrect in relation to parking on the private land. In fact my hospital appointment was on 29th X 2018 not 6th X 2018 as indicated on the County Court Claim.

so maybe put it as #2 where it fits nicely, and change it thus:

2. The Particulars of Claim ('POC') are incorrect, in relation to the alleged date of parking on the private land. In fact the Defendant's hospital appointment was on 29th X 2018 not 6th X 2018 and this is vital data pertaining to the claim.

2.1. As such, the Defendant truthfully denies that the vehicle was parked and/or breached any terms on the date stated in the POC, given the sparse and incorrect details set out, and avers that this error is fundamental and not trivial, given that the Claimant handles such cases every day with a bespoke Enforcement litigation team, and remunerated in-house solicitors.

2.2. This basic failure and the vexatious nature of this typical cut & paste 'one size fits all' parking charge robo-claim, with no checks being made about the facts to show that the Claimant has any claim in law (given their breaches of the NHS Parking Principles and the ICO's ANPR Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, and given that the facts of this case can be fully distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis in all respects) cannot be described as 'trivial' conduct and that the Claimant cannot just 'amend' the POC and expect relief from sanctions.

2.3. The Defendant avers that this poorly pleaded claim with no 'legitimate interest' possible to save this charge from the penalty rule, and the wrong date and detail in the sparse POC, amounts to a gross abuse of process, and that sanctions should be imposed. The Defendant relies upon para 41 of Mitchell v. News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537, [2014] 1 WLR 795 which is re-iterated in para 24 of Denton v T H White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906.

Ralph-y

seeing as this claim started over £1 .... I would try and get your MP onboard ....


I know you are being asked to read lots and lots ...


but if you get chance read / watch the below before contacting your MP








https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

and slightly longer, the committee stage

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/d5550515-cce9-4185-83ec-754dadb7524a

''Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; unfair treatment; signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued; ''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; bloodsuckers; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; extortionate fines; rogue operators; ''sense of injustice''; unfair charges and notices; wilfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; unreasonable; a curse; harassing; operating in a disgusting way; appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing; loathed; outrageous scam; dodgy practice; outrageous abuse; unscrupulous practices; ''the British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert''; and finally, by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.

These are the exact words used, so you should quote them to your MP in a complaint and ask him/her to contact Sir Greg Knight MP if he wants further information about this scam.

and some quotes from the committe stage

"The other area is hospital parking, and I want to single out one company for some pretty shady practices. That is ParkingEye"
" is very clear to me that there is collusion between parking companies and solicitors’ firms—so-called roboclaims companies. "
"They are often set up adjacently and involve the same directors and personnel. Incidentally, the same personnel get involved in the so-called appeals bodies."
"Essentially, it is a money-making enterprise that takes advantage of motorists up and down the country. They operate in a very business-like fashion, which is why I call them roboclaims companies."
"The companies are jamming up parts of our legal system."
“I now pretty much know exactly how the parking companies and in particular the IPC have been running this scam for the past 5 years. Basically both of the appeals processes are a complete and utter sham, (and part of that sham is Gladstones Solicitors itself)”
"The appeals process at Excel/VCS is run by a team of minimum wage office workers with no legal knowledge or experience whatsoever,"
" It is claimed by the head of the appeals service (retired Judge Bryn Holloway) that this is a completely independent fair process, it is not”
"The letter mentions two individuals—Will Hurley and Bryn Holloway—and concludes this is a typical example of the clear collusion between the IPC, their members and the IAS"
"what we can do about roboclaims companies and solicitors firms that profit, often in shady ways"
" the very large amounts of money that can be involved in such scams—a company called Smart Parking was involved in one such scam on my patch"
"tightening up the rules regarding the unfair use of automatic number plate recognition" "BW Legal, regularly issues 10,000 county court judgments a month, and is known to have issued 28,000 in one month"
"They are jamming up our court system, and are often totally unjustified."
" because the lifeblood of trying to extort money from people is having access to their details."

All from Parking (Code of Practice) Bill (First sitting) Hansard







Ralph:cool:

puglove1234

Thank you so much Coupon Mad. I had started the week completely stressed and upset about my defence Equally, having spent all week, hours on end reading and researching, I have finally completed it

Thank you for taking the time to read through it!

puglove1234

Do you think my local MP would be interested in this? Or would it be the MP of the area of the car park?

I didn't even think I had a leg to stand on, but having read other similar stories, I can see I am not the only one!