County court letter

Quentin

Hope you aren't leaving all this in the hands of the company you have signed up to??


If you want advice on your proposed defence you need to post a draft here for comments with enough time to make changes before you send it!

Hollers

I've just googled the company in question and don't think I'll be relying on them now. I don't know why i didn't Google them first to be honest. I'll be working on a defence tonight and will post up as soon as . I'm really not good at anything like this though so will do my best

Quentin

If they have your money then maybe ask for it back and post about your experience of them on Trustpilot

Coupon-mad

Hollers wrote: »

Thanks for the reply.

I've left this late minute as that's what I do best but actually had a browse on the parking pranksters page and came across a company that apparently get you out of these situations, so I signed up and now can not get anything back from them,

I can't even find them on parking prankster anymore and I have 3/4 days left to file my defence. So this is my job for the next couple of evenings

OMG why?

You were here getting our help for free, and we achieve results.

Did you complain to the Parking Prankster, maybe he will be horrified. He posts here and is a very genuine guy, but has been silent of late.

Did you read all of the long/updated TrustPilot review by 'cdevlinc' (I have no idea either way if what he says is true, but it has not been removed by TrustPilot and is there to be read, including an August update)?

Take a look. There is a route suggested by that unknown reviewer, and someone might want to post a link to it (I can't right now as I am on my lunch hour/wrong PC).

Edited to add, if you are sent an email or private message by anyone and you are concerned about it, no matter what it says don't run away from this forum, tell us.

Hollers

i guess what these companies prey on and seeing a court letter I immediately panicked and seeing as the company was on parking pranksters own web site I automatically assumes they were reputable.

Hollers

anyway ive drafted up a defence but as I said anything like this and professional/formal like this is way beyond me (builder by trade) so im really not good with words and certainly not at writing letters etc so this is mainly copied and pasted but ive tried to personalise it as much as possible.




County court business centre


Claim No. xxxx


Between


UK Car park management Ltd (claimant)


And


xxxx (defendant)





Defence





I am xxxx, the defendant in this matter and previously the registered keeper of vehicle xxxx


I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim on the following grounds

• This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye V Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA code of practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a license to park fee. As far as I can ascertain, based upon the very vague particulars of claim and without being furnished with any alleged signage of contract, none of this applies in this material case
  
• In the absence of any adequate signage contractually bounding the defendant than there could have been no contract between the driver and the claimant
  
• Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver, this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case
  
• The Claimant also seeks to recover additional costs from the original amount set out in the POC up to £435.64 which appears to be an attempt at double recovery and which is specifically disallowed under Section 4 (5) of the POFA (Exhibit 4).
  
• It is believed UK car park management do not hold a legitimate contract at this residency. As an agent, the claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner
  
• The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-land owner to pursue even nominal damages
  
• Due to the length of time, the defendant has little to no recollection of the days in question. It would not be reasonable to expect a registered keeper to be able to recall the potential drivers of the vehicle months later. In any case, there is no such obligation in law and this was confirmed in the POPLA annual report 2015 by parking expert barrister and lead adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, who also clarified the fact that a registered keeper cam only be held liable under the POFA schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument
  
  The defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the claimant in any matter and asks the court to note the claimant has
  
  Failed to disclose any cause of action in the numerous incorrectly claim forms, well known to be generic cut and paste particulars of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis/Vine v Waltham forest) which ignores the fact that this claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non POFA documentation
  
  In addition to the conduct regarding the lack of good service of the claim, the purpoted cause of action was meritless and misconceived. Given the fact that this claimant does not rely on the protection of freedoms act 2012, schedule 4 and cannot claim ‘keeper liability’ under that law due to the wording of its notice, the action of pursuing a registered keeper with no evidence as to who was driving on the material date is vexatious and wholly unreasonable. From the outset, this claimants claim was without merit and had no prospects of success.
  
  Should the claim continue to trial, the defendant submits that, for any or all reasons stated above, the claimant is not entitled to the relief in the sum claimed, or at all, and invites the court to dismiss the claim in its entirety, and to award such defence witness costs as are permissible pursuant to CPR 27.14.
  
  STATEMENT OF TRUTH
  
  I confirm that the contents of this defence are true
  
  xxxx
  11th September 2018

Hollers

seeing as we don't know the driver at the time I have not mentioned anything about working/unloading.


if this will help my case I can try and fit it in somewhere, im just unsure how to word it

Quentin

You need to edit your OP to remove details of who was driving.


The ppcs monitor here and can use your posts against you

Hollers

thanks for the heads up, should be ok now? also removed any pictures

Coupon-mad

Hollers wrote: »

i guess what these companies prey on and seeing a court letter I immediately panicked and seeing as the company was on parking pranksters own web site I automatically assumes they were reputable.

Did you read the review by 'cdevlinc' in the Trustpilot review list, and the update I mentioned?

You saw what he said there about what he (apparently) has done? Please read it.

Please tell us how you get on regarding that, and if you get any private messages or emails, don't reply, but do not be silent here - tell us please - we want to know what you do to sort the issue out regarding the 'Appeals Company' linked by the Parking Prankster on his website...

should be ok now?

No, not if the Defendant is a company rather than an individual. You said;

...parking tickets(photos) on private land while our company were doing some building work on a house.

So if the named Defendant is your company, not a person, then the person is not the Defendant, and they need a defence that starts and is signed off in this style instead:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74753600#Comment_74753600

Not that entire defence of course (not the coeliac/Equality Act parts!).