County Court Claim Form received

DEANO606

OK, so this is what I was thinking of filing today. I originally thought that evidence proving that I wasn't the driver was enough, but apparently this isn't enough so I've taken some points from other cases defences from this site.

Does this seem like its enough? Thanks in advance for your help as always! It's amazing that so many of you give your time for free to help others this way.



In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number:

Between:

XX vs NATIONAL CAR PARKS LIMITED

The defendant, who is the registered keeper of vehicle in question, denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

1. The Claim Form issued on the 28 August 2018 by NATIONAL CAR PARKS LIMITED was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person. The claim does not have a valid signature. The claim states that it has been issued by BW Legal Services Limited as the Claimant's Legal Representative. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by a person holding a senior position and state the position. If the party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth but in his own name and not that of his firm or employer.
2. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 has not been complied with. The registered keeper has not been proven as the driver of the vehicle at the time, as such the keeper can only be held liable if the claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements. The Defendant was in fact working in another city for the entirety of the date the Parking Charge Notice was issued, which is supported by a witness statement, and entries in the Defendant’s diary.
Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for, is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot recover any additional charges when neither the signs, nor the NTK mentioned a possible £242.96 for outstanding debt and damages. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. Even if they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "legal expenses". These cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court regardless of the identity of the driver. If the legal representative of the claimant is an employee then the Defendant suggests they are remunerated. As the particulars of the claim are templates, it is not credible that £50 legal costs were incurred. The defendant denies the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.
3. 3) The proper claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the owner to National Car Parks Limited. 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.
Without a contract from the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.
4) No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.

5) 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 licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.
6) The signage on the site in question was unclear, poorly placed and not prominent on site/around the areas in question. No contract has been formed with driver(s) to pay £100, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(i) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
(ii) Failure to prominently and clearly inform the driver the purpose of the ANPR system and how the data captured would be used.
(iii) It is believed the signage and any terms were not transparent or legible from any vehicle upon parking; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
(iv) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
(v) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.

7) In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.
a) The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.
b) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.
c) The Defendant relies upon the Beavis case as the Court were willing to impose 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) The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim
The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:
(a) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 24th May 2018.
(b) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim relying on irrelevant case law which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.
9) It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

10) If the court believes there was a contract (which is denied) this is just the sort of 'simple financial contract' identified at the Supreme Court as one with an easily quantifiable loss, identified as completely different from the complex 'free parking licence' arrangement in Beavis.
Where loss can be quantified, the 'complex' and 'completely different' Beavis decision is inapplicable, as was found in ParkingEye Ltd v Cargius, A0JD1405 at Wrexham County Court.
At the Court of Appeal stage in Beavis, pay-per-hour car parks were specifically held by those Judges (in findings not contradicted in the Supreme Court later) as still being subject to the "penalty" rule, with the potential for the charge to be held to be wholly disproportionate to the tariff, and thus unrecoverable. In other words, charging £100 for a period of time for which the 'agreed and published' tariff rate is £1/hour, would be perverse, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and not a matter that the courts should uphold.

The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons.The court is invited to strike out the claim under CPR Rule 3.4 as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

The_Deep

Also write to your MP to complain, it not only brings the PPC scam to the attention of the member but costs the PPC money to reply, read this

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the House of Commons recently

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41 recently.

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

DEANO606

Update - received a letter today confirming receipt of my defence and that its now back to the claimant to respond.

Thanks for all the help so-far, you've helped me to go from nervous-wreck to confident justice warrior! You are all stars.

Quentin

The court process is set out in the newbies faq thread #2


The claimant won't respond to you regarding your defence, but decide whether or not to proceed with the court claim, if they wish to proceed you will get further communication from the court (all detailed in that post in the FAQ)

DEANO606

what's the general move from the claimant - do NCP tend to proceed with the claim at this stage?

Quentin

All you can do is wait and see


They have now incurred extra costs (paid out a court fee to issue the claim) so maybe expect this to proceed

DEANO606

So I have had a letter from BW Legal saying their client wishes to continue the claim.

They also sent a copy of the Directions Questionnaire - they've signed it "BW Legal" rather than the named person which is clearly incorrect according to Practice Direction 22.

There's nothing I have been told to do yet on this. Shall I just wait?

System

There's nothing I have been told to do yet on this. Shall I just wait?

Are you sure? Wait for your own copy of the DQ which will give you the instruction to complete it and return by a particular date.

Or you can download a blank N180 and fill it out according to the instructions in the Newbies thread and send it back sooner rather than later.

DEANO606

not received a DQ form yet - I will wait and if I haven't had it by Mon/Tues I'll download the blank. Thanks!

Guys_Dad

I know it's a bit shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, but for your future benefit and the benefit of other, had you named the driver and given their overseas address as their residence, you would have been off the hook and the PPC wouldn't have wasted time and money trying to bring an action in Canada.