Norwich Traffic Control make claim via Northampton County Court against me... HELP!

beamerguy

A SAR is basically for you to obtain information
they hold. It is NOT a system where they can ask
you questions especially about personal info

They already have the information they are allowed
and that came from the DVLA

Report them to the ICO if within 30 days they have
not provided the information requested

elgordo9

That's what I thought. I certainly will be reporting them to the ICO if they fail to fulfil my request!

beamerguy

elgordo9 wrote: »

That's what I thought. I certainly will be reporting them to the ICO if they fail to fulfil my request!

Remember you are being given sh*t

You return the favour by going to a higher authority,
much higher than a low life parking scammer

elgordo9

How exactly should I go about asking questions of the claim? The inadequate PoC don't really give me a lot to base my defence on and it appears as though I won't be provided with any evidence before my defence is due.

Umkomaas

And why are you opening and closing communications containing formal requests for information set in a legal context with 'Hi' and 'Regards'?

I just can't understand it. They are trying to gouge you out of your money, have instructed solicitors to pursue you, possibly sue you through the courts and you're being all 'chummy'. Would you be so 'welcoming' to a mugger jumping you down a dark alleyway to rob your wallet? Stop it!

Use 'Sir' (not even Dear Sir) and 'Yours faithfully'. Raise the level of the game, make this much more serious and professional.

elgordo9

Umkomaas wrote: »

And why are you opening and closing communications containing formal requests for information set in a legal context with 'Hi' and 'Regards'?

I just can't understand it. They are trying to gouge you out of your money, have instructed solicitors to pursue you, possibly sue you through the courts and you're being all 'chummy'. Would you be so 'welcoming' to a mugger jumping you down a dark alleyway to rob your wallet? Stop it!

Use 'Sir' (not even Dear Sir) and 'Yours faithfully'. Raise the level of the game, make this much more serious and professional.

Thanks for your feedback, I'll take it on board. I can assure you I have no intention of appearing chummy.

beamerguy

elgordo9 wrote: »

Thanks for your feedback, I'll take it on board. I can assure you I have no intention of appearing chummy.

YUP, it's got to be

Dear Sir(s), Dear Madam or Dear Idiot

We must query what is happening in his village whilst
he is at work with NTC

elgordo9

Hi All,

I've just completed an initial draft of my defence, largely adapted from those that have been produced and reviewed on this forum. I am really struggling to think of anything else to include, mainly due to the fact that I have very little paperwork from NTC to work with! Any comments or additions/alterations would be greatly appreciated.

I have read that the defence of "I was not the driver" is no longer acceptable and therefore I've chosen to leave that out. Truth be told, it was so long ago and the date was so insignificant to me in my mind, that I really cannot remember why or for how long anyone would have parked there (if indeed anyone did at all).

The draft is as follows:

1. I am XXXXX XXXXX, defendant in this matter. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident. The claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at St Andrews House Car Park, Norwich on 15/04/2017.

1.1. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £70 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

2. Due to the sparseness of the Particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant breached any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

2.1 Despite several Subject Access Requests to both BW Legal and Norwich Traffic Control under GDPR, the defendant has not been provided with any further information that may elaborate on the inadequacies of the Particulars, and the defendant is therefore left with very little basis to build a defence upon.

3. In any case, the Claimant is put to strict proof that it had sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it had the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation in its own name on the material date. The Claimant appears to be a contractor on an agent/principal basis operating under a bare licence to erect signs and collect monies from the machines, and no doubt, to issue PCNs - but 'on behalf of' the landowner, which would give them no authority or standing.

4. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.

4.1 The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

5. In addition to the original PCN penalty, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added 'costs' of £60, which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.

5.1. These have been variously described as ‘NTC’s initial legal costs’ and/or a ‘contractual costs pursuant to PCN terms and conditions'. There is also a second add-on for purported 'legal representative costs of £50' on top of the vague £60, artificially hiking the sum to £215.56. This is vague and disingenuous and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.

5.1.1. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £70. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and a further £50 for ‘legal representative’s costs’. This appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

5.2. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs. Given the fact that BW Legal boasted in Bagri v BW Legal Ltd of processing 'millions' of claims with an admin team (and only a handful of solicitors), the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste PPS robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities.

5.2.1. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.

6. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

beamerguy

The problem BWLegal has is that do not understand
the fake £60 under the pretence of admin charges
or whatever they wake up with on the day

It took a long time for the penny to drop with
BWLegal about Elliott v Loake.
The courts kept telling BWLegal but BWLegal
continued with their rubbish and continued
being whooped in court

The penny will drop again with BWLegal when
the courts tell them they cannot claim fake scam
charges.

Might take months and in between, they will
probably wonder why they keep on failing

How the SRA still allow BWLegal to practice
is beyond all of us

elgordo9

Does anyone have any advice regarding the defence? All being well I intend on submitting it tomorrow.