County Court Claim Form Received

clarke-17

Hi there,

I have received a county court claim form in relation to parking tickets but having read elsewhere not to disclose too much I am hesitant to post too many details... Please can someone advise on how best to proceed? Thanks!

Coupon-mad

Same as here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74874171#Comment_74874171

but tell us:

- the PPC, and whether they are using BW Legal, SCS, Gladstones, etc?

- the date of the claim

- what the alleged contravention was

- whether any appeal was already lodged and if the driver was identified?

- the EXACT WORDS on the left 'PARTICULARS OF CLAIM' (minus the VRN).

KeithP

The way forward is to read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

In there you will see that the first thing to do is Acknowledge Service of the claim.

What is the Date of Issue printed on your Claim Form?

Who is the parking company?

clarke-17

PCC: National Parking Management - I have not rcvd any communication from a solicitor.
Date of issue: 24/09/18
Alleged contravention: Unauthorised parking
No appeal was lodged and the driver was not identified, however a response requesting evidence, asking them to keep to the obligations of the practice direction (used a template on here).
They then sent me various bits and pieces with different dates - initially said there were 7 then changed to 4 and confirmed 4 in writing - missed out pieces of evidence so that went back and forth for a while.
Particulars of claim: XXX parked his vehicle XXX on private land at XXX and was issued with five parking charge notices (PCN) for Unauthorised Parking. Photographic evidence of contravention was taken which is dated and time stamped. XXX has received numerous correspondence from NPM and had paid for one of the PCNs but has ignored the other four (Wrong - none have ever been paid for - by their own confirmation there is 4) The PCNs were passed to our debt recovery team (ZZPS) and additional charges were applied. We would like to claim a total of four PCNs at £160 totalling £640. We would also like to claim for court cost (Total claimed £700).

Coupon-mad

Chancers, adding £60 to each one, as usual it's a scam add-on. Can't be claimed.

Read the NEWBIES thread 2nd post, do the Acknowledgement of Service on MCOL, now.

Then settle down and read umpteen defence threads, immerse yourself in it then show us your draft defence about 'alleged Unauthorised parking' which normally means using a defence that mentions prohibitive signs PCM v Bull (search the forum!).

Redx

wot she said ^^^^ lol


cheeky b************* , adding £60 per pcn and inflating it over the £600 limit for a high court writ !


the correct fugures would be say £100 x 4 + say £75 in court fees, making £475 , not £700


AOS first, then draft the defence for critique

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 24th September, you have until Monday 15th October to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox link from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

Having done the AoS, you then have until 4pm on Monday 29th October 2018 to file your Defence.

That's over three weeks away. Plenty of time to hone your Defence to perfection.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described here:

1) Print your Defence.
2) Sign it and date it.
3) Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
4) Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
5) Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
6) Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
7) Wait for your Directions Questionnaire and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

clarke-17

Thank you so much all. I will update with a draft defence soon

System

@clarke-17

There is a lot of confusion about how many tickets were issued but the key issues is how many different tickets are in evidence? How many unique PCN numbers are there.

A judge will accept evidence first, then what both parties agree second, then balance of probabilities third. So you have to sort out the paperwork first and decide how many you are fighting and the facts around each one as each one is different. Do a simple timeline.

Don't just grab at a template no matter how inviting they look. Some will guarantee you a loss so do as much work as you can upfront - but don't miss the court's timings.

The_Deep

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.

clarke-17

Hi all,

Please see below for draft response.
I am very unsure about point 8 but feel it relevant that something should be in there about their total lack of organisation!
Also, the 'car park' in question is a gravel area with white lines spray painted on the wall. According to the image on their signage, a car must be parked fully within a marked bay (with a picture of how this should look) which is impossible to translate to real-life driving. Do you think this point is clear enough or is there a better way to express it?

Thanks in advance!

In The County Court
Claim No: XXXXXXX
Between
National Parking Management (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim consists of a relatively small area of gravel with no delegated bays. Given this lack of clarity regarding how or where a member of the public is, or is not, allowed to park in this car park, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem principle.

3. 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. They merely state that vehicles must be parked “fully within a marked parking bay”, and as previously mentioned there are no marked parking bays on this ‘land’ at all.

4. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. 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.

6. The Claimant is put to strict 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, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

7. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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 £100.

8. Throughout the pre-claim process, the Claimant has been inconsistent in the information provided to the Defendant. The Defendant was initially informed that there were seven PCNs, then it was confirmed in writing that there were four. This claim has been filed on the basis that there were five PCNs - one of which has been paid for - which again is inaccurate.

9. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date