Defence letter

Helpb

Sit there opening and closing your mouth like a goldfish?
Hi do you know I do this?.Not the most brightest person I know.
From what I understand to appeal
1, a parking company cannot charge as they don't own the land
2,They have to provide clear photos and information of the parking charge,which in my case they might have already done in my appeal two years ago
So I have one valid point in my defence.Yes I have read the sticky thread for newbies over and over again,but not the brightest

System

What are the particulars (middle box / left hand side).

Are you able to let us see those?

Redx

Helpb wrote: »

Z) From what I understand to appeal

1, a parking company cannot charge as they don't own the land

2,They have to provide clear photos and information of the parking charge,which in my case they might have already done in my appeal two years ago

Z) - You are not "appealing" , its too late for any appeal

1) they can if there is a clear contract all the way through to the landholder

very few parking companies own the land they operate on , but they need written permission from the landowner or a contract with a managing agent or similar that has a contract with the landowner , so one contract or several, but the landowner needs to have passed down the permission (that is the criteria)

2) yes they may have done so, but usually only one or two and not lots, but they may have lots, so an SAR for everything a PPC has should give you everything they have on your vehicle and you as keeper and as defendant

LASTLY, this DEFENCE is not a letter, it is not a defence statement, it is simply

DEFENCE

which is how it should be headed


also you need to tell us what it says EXACTLY in the POC box , ALL OF IT

and as mentioned earlier, you may have to explain yourself to a judge, you may not like this "game" and you may know nothing about it, but you have been picked to play in it for the entire game, including the penalty shoot out at the end

IGNORANCE is no defence, sorry to say, so you need to research and learn, not just repeat stuff parrot fashion

Helpb

Full particulars are
The driver of the vehicle registration xxxxxxx (the Vehicle) incurred the parking charge(s) on 29/01/2016 for breaching the terms of parking on the land at 1423 - Private parking areas at Manchester Aquatics Centre Booth Street East Manchester - Manchester Aquatics Centre 2 Booth Street East Manchester M13 9SS
The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
£160 for Parking Charges / Damages and indemnity costs of applicable,together with interest of £32.57 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa,continuing to Judgement at £0.04 per day

System

If you were to use Google Street View of the location would you be able to remember what happened?

There are Pay & Display areas there but more likely it will be a permit only spot as it is UKPPO.

Redx

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Take out anything that is not relevant; can't be proven; or is a basic lie [perjury]

Note you are able to cut and paste though.

in addition to the above , read this recent court case where the defendant lost

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5841502/any-advice-letter-before-claim-premier-park

especially read the defendant comments in post #9

If I was to do this again or was giving advice to anyone I would consider the following:


1. Don't use scatter-gun approach, make only relevant points


2. Check whether the mistake was mine/theirs before fighting

The charge still hardly seems fair for such a minor mistake, but on reflection


I think I made it worse for myself by not following those steps.

Helpb

Thank you both for taking time to reply.
From what I remember I would have parked in a blue badge space,but do have a blue badge

I do think it was because I forgot to place the blue badge on dashboard,as I have made mistake a few times,mainly through council parking

I think parking charge was £60 rising to £100 if didnt
pay within 30 days.As didn't have money would have appealed,which sar is showing
Appeal would have been in my own words,as didn't know about this site,but had read either way to ignore if they refuse as most don't bother taking to court
Have personal debts,and have two ccjs ,so not bothered about another.I just wanted to argue this charge,as disgusted about how much they charge for a pcn
Have a couple of days to put my defence in,so might just go down the route,of seeing what information the Solicitors do have as the sar from ukppo,does not hold any images of vrn or signs,
Hopeful

System

[STRIKE](1). The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction
16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the
Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade
Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says
1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you
must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you
as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where
applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover
parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not
necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an
operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient
right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator
directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.

(2). The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as
there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars
of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimants are
known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service
have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour
is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest.


Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point:

1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of
claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
1. those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money
owed £1000’,
2. those which are incoherent and make no sense,
3. those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not
disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant

(3). The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.

1. I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out
that there can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the
Pre-action Conduct process, especially bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by
their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before issuing proceedings.

On the basis of the above, we request the court strike out the claim for want of a
cause of action.
[/STRIKE]

Statement of Defence

I am 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 Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons.

(1). The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been
ascertained.
1. The Claimant did not identify the driver
2. The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.

3. The Claimant's increasingly demanding letters failed to evidence any contravention or clear/prominent signage. Further, the Notice to Keeper (postal 'PCN') failed to give the statutory warning to the registered keeper about the '28 day period' which is mandatory wording as prescribed in paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the Claimant is unable to rely on the 'keeper liability' provisions of the POFA.

(3) The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full
defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken
have not been provided.

1. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.

2. The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.

3. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.

4. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action
which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.
There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge
was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair
exchange of information.
[STRIKE]The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.[/STRIKE]

[STRIKE]5. On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking
charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St
Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being
incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could
give rise to any apparent claim in law.’

f) On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very
similar parking charge particulars of claim were eficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4
and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new
particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be
struck out.


(4) The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.
1. I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out
that there can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-
action Conduct process, especially bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their
own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before issuing proceedings.
[/STRIKE]

(5) The defendant wrote to the claimant on xxxxx asking for:
a) Full particulars of the parking charges
b) Who the party was that contracted with UK Car Park Management.
c) The full legal identity of the landowner
d) A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd had their authority.
e) If the charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide
justification of this sum
f) If the charge was based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking
and If so to provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.
g) To provide a copy of the signs that UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd can evidence were on site and which contended formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all
photographs taken of the vehicle in question.

The claimant has not responded.

(6) Withholding any relevant photos of the car, particularly the windscreen and
dashboard, and the signage terms, despite being asked for by the Defendant at the
outset, is against the SRA code as well as contrary to the ‘overiding objective’ in the
pre action protocol.
[STRIKE]As Gladstones are a firm of solicitors whose Directors also run the IPC Trade Body
and deal with private parking issues every single day of the week there can be no
excuse for these omissions.
[/STRIKE]

The Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and
asks leave to amend the Defence.

(7). UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd are not 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 rights to bring action regarding this claim.
[STRIKE]1. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the
landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
2. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a
vehicle parking at the location in question
3. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are
specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party
agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge

[/STRIKE]
(8)
1. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been
calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100
to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an
attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
2. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be
recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

(9) The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist
1. The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it
difficult to read.
2. The sign fails because it must state what the ANPR data will be used for. This is an
ICO breach and contrary to the Code of Practice.
3. The sign does not contain an obligation as to how to ‘validly display’ the ticket in the
windscreen, therfore there was no breach of any ‘relevant obligation’ or ‘relevant
contract’ as required under Schedule 4 of POFA.
4. In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in
large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case)
this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.

(10) The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed
between the parties and no contract was established.

The Defendant denies that the driver 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.

[STRIKE](11)
1. The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that
further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the
debt to a ‘local’ recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be
calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges of £25 to the
£100 with no evidence of how this extra charge has been calculated.
No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the
alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs.
Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were
incorporated into the small print when they were not.
2. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
3. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs
to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
4. Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
5. The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal fees" not "contractual costs".
CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.
[/STRIKE]

[STRIKE](12). The Defendant would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished
from the details, facts and location in the Beavis case. This site does not offer a free
parking licence, nor is there any comparable 'legitimate interest' nor complex
contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule, as ParkingEye did in the
unique case heard by the Supreme Court in 2015. Whilst the Claimant withheld any
photos of the signs on site, the Defendant contends these are illegible with terms
hidden in small print, unlike the 'clear and prominent' signs which created a contract
Mr Beavis was 'bound to have seen'.
[/STRIKE]

I've tried to take out as much of the waffle as possible. Do you want to have another go at reducing it even further baring in mind you want a judge to quickly understand the points.

Have a look here on how the same [reduced] information has been reduced even further

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74925335#Comment_74925335

Helpb

g) To provide a copy of the signs that UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd can evidence were on site and which contended formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all
photographs taken of the vehicle in question.

The claimant has not responded.

(6) Withholding any relevant photos of the car, particularly the windscreen and
dashboard, and the signage terms, despite being asked for by the Defendant at the
outset, is against the SRA code as well as contrary to the ‘overiding objective’ in the
pre action protocol

Can I include this?Ukppo might have provided signs/photo two years ago when I appealed.But when i requested sar two weeks ago,no images was given
Also claimant has responded,just not with another information

(9) The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist
1. The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it
difficult to read.
2. The sign fails because it must state what the ANPR data will be used for. This is an
ICO breach and contrary to the Code of Practice.
3. The sign does not contain an obligation as to how to ‘validly display’ the ticket in the
windscreen, therfore there was no breach of any ‘relevant obligation’ or ‘relevant
contract’ as required under Schedule 4 of POFA.
4. In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in
large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case)
this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA

Also this paragraph,as again they could have provided photos two years ago.Also I cannot provide photos of sign of two years ago,as didn't take any
Again appreciate the help

nosferatu1001

6) Yes. Just put the date of your request and that it was actually a SAR. By definition, if they have not provided them under a SAR, they dont exist.

9) You assert it and they have to prove it.