Court pending after paying fine!

F1neF1ghter

Hi thanks so much. Where are you getting the extending period from? I cannot see it on the Justice gov website, just says 28 days from the issue date (11/06 in my case) That would be today?

Thanks!

KeithP

F1neF1ghter wrote: »

Hi thanks so much. Where are you getting the extending period from? I cannot see it on the Justice gov website, just says 28 days from the issue date (11/06 in my case) That would be today?

Thanks!

No it doesn't.

It says 28 days from date of service.

Date of service is deemed to be five days after date of issue of the claim.

11 June + 5 + 28 = Saturday 14th July.

If the due date is a non-working day then one is allowed until 4pm on the next working day = Monday 16th July.

F1neF1ghter

KeithP wrote: »

No it doesn't.

It says 28 days from date of service.

Date of service is deemed to be five days after date of issue of the claim.

11 June + 5 + 28 = Saturday 14th July.

If the due date is a non-working day then one is allowed until 4pm on the next working day = Monday 16th July.

Thank you. You seem to have much more knowledge than me but I cannot find anywhere that says about the additional 5 days!

On the justice.gov site it states:

Method of service Deemed date of service
1. First class post (or other service which provides for delivery on the next business day) The second day after it was posted, left with, delivered to or collected by the relevant service provider provided that day is a business day; or
if not, the next business day after that day.

Sorry for my paranoia but I need to get this right

Coupon-mad

We know what we are doing, honestly, it's a max of 33 days but I wouldn't push it.

KeithP

It's in the Money Claim Online (MCOL) - User Guide for Claimants.

On page 14 of that document it says:

How long does the defendant have to respond to my claim?

The court will send out a claim pack to each defendant once the claim has been issued and allows 5 calendar days from the date of issue for the service of the claim. Therefore the 'date of service' is the 5th calendar day after issue. Please note, if you have served separate particulars of claim then this may affect the deemed date of service (as above).

The defendant has 14 calendar days from the 'date of service' to file a response. If the last day for filing the response falls on a day that the court is not open (i.e. a weekend or public holiday), the court will allow the next full working day for a response. The defendant can extend the time to respond to 28 calendar days by filing an acknowledgment of service (AOS).

It can surely be found elsewhere.

F1neF1ghter

Again thank you guys and sorry for all my newbieness!!

I have read everything and have my draft below. I will obviously add things like reg plates upon submission on the Money Claim Online website.

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.

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. 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.

Background
3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with [provider] with [number] of named drivers permitted to use it.

4. It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]

5. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.!
5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
5.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
5.2.1. there was a 'relevant obligation'; either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
5.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.!

5.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
6. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.

7. The Defendant avers that the operator's signs cannot override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in!Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd!(2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in!K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd![2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

7. Accordingly it is denied that:
7.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
7.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and!
7.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
8. In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon!ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis!(2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
8.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.!
8.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;!
8.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee's ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
8.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in!J Spurling v Bradshaw![1956] EWCA Civ 3
8.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with!ParkingEye!distinguished.

9. 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.

10. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

11. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

12. Further the defendant has already paid n online £150.50 in respect of this claim on 06/04/2017 for which a receipt was received. In addition the letter from the claimant's solicitor which clearly states quote - !!!8220;thereby avoiding the consideration of any future court action and any increase in the amount claimed.!!!8221;

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.

Thank you again

KeithP

F1neF1ghter wrote: »

I have read everything... ...upon submission on the Money Claim Online website.

No.

Please do not try and file your Defence via the MCOL website.
Post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread tells you that and explains why.

Please re-read post #31 above - only written less than two hours ago - surely you've not forgotten it already. .


8.1.2. IPC = International Parking Community.

twhitehousescat

ipc code of practice at time of incident https://theipc.info/resources/brandings/brandmedia_2_Code-of-Practice.pdf read carefully , about multiple tickets for "same offence"

nigelbb

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

I have not checked POFA, but if you have a keeper's defence and didn't out yourself as driver, doesn't POFA have something in it about no more than 1 pcn in any 24 hour period is enforceable? I have this imprinted in my brain somewhere, but may be wrong. Other regulars may be able to answer that.
-

You are wrong:) POFA contains no such clause however UKCPM must purchase keeper details from the DVLA for each & every "offence" so even if they claim three parking "offences" in one day they must purchase keeper details three times.

F1neF1ghter

Cheers again everyone for all your help, will send to the gov email address via PDF then!

So apart from that my defence above is ok? Anything I should add? Think it should be ok.

Thanks again you legends