registered keep deceased

Umkomaas

Call the CCBC in the morning, report the situation, and ask how you should proceed.

Prepare for a bit of a 'wait' on the phone as they a swamped (probably by private parking cases).

Fruitcake

eeebygum1528 wrote: »

I am hopeful the matter is dismissed but as i understand it if i do not follow procedure and enter a defence the matter would be found against. So better to be prepared.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't understand how anyone who is not the named defendant can submit a defence, or even answer a letter before claim.

eeebygum1528

I have sent a copy of the Death Certificate to CEL and after a week there has been no response. Date of service on the Claim form is 1/10/2018. I have made a few changes to the defence document and would like any input please before I send to the court.

DEFENCE



1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. It is brought to the courts attention that the Defendant named in this claim is deceased and that the Claimant has been made aware of this fact both in writing and by provision of a copy of the relevant Death Certificate.

3. It is submitted that on the material date the Defendant could not have been either the driver or the keeper and as such this claim has no merit.

4. The Claim relates to an alleged debt and damages arising from a driver’s alleged breach of contract when parking at Whalley car park on 03/10/2016.

5. It is admitted that at the time of the alleged incident a parking charge was purchased and correctly displayed within the vehicle at the relevant time.

6. The allegation appears to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper “parking in a private car park managed by the Claimant”. The Defendant is put to strict proof that the vehicle was parked within the confines of the car park at the relevant time.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show evidence of the car park layout by means of date stamped photographs as this car park is no longer in existence in the same format and has been the subject of building work for a period of time. It is alleged the signing in the carpark provided no guidance on the use of the ticket machine that was in a legible or cogent format and as such a person would be unaware of any processes to correct any error caused by machine defects.

8. At the time of the alleged breach of terms, payment was made via an automated ticket machine. The car park had 2 such machines and they were regularly out of service. The payment was made and the use of the keyboard to input details was hampered by a faulty mechanism in that some letters and numbers were damaged and there was no working facility to correct any error in information input. The correct payment was made and the ticket produced showed an additional character input by means of duplicating the number “6”. The visual display was scratched and unlit and was placed at a low height making it difficult to see any display when using the machine as such the duplicated number was not seen at the time of purchase. The ticket produced was displayed within the vehicle displaying the correct fee payment.

9. The first notice of any defect in the machine was when a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was posted to the listed Defendant more than 22 days after the alleged incident. The Claimant was informed of the data processing/storage error, as soon as the automatic PCN arrived.

10. The claimant is put to strict proof to show a maintenance schedule for the ticket machines which should include the number of times the machine was defective, the length of time the machine was defective and the fault at issue.

11. At no time did the Claimant issue a windscreen PCN nor did they issue a Notice To Keeper (NTK) at any stage. Notwithstanding the listed Defendant is deceased it is asserted the Claimant has failed to comply with Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and no keeper liability is possible.

12. In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by claiming £236.00 under the guise of “Debt + damages” which have not actually been incurred by the Claimant. The Particulars of Claim (POC) show no damages caused during the alleged incident.

13. Whilst a reasonable sum may be recoverable in an instance where a claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim, Civil Enforcement Ltd have not expended any such sum in this case. This Claimant files hundreds of similar 'cut & paste' claims, not incurring any legal cost per case. The Claimant is put to strict proof to the contrary, given the fact that their in-house costs cannot possibly be believed to be paid for their services.

14. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the POFA) 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 (NTK) in this case £100. In the Beavis case, ParkingEye were only able to seek the stated 'parking charge' sum on their NTK, since there was no quantifiable tariff.

15. It is not accepted that the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements of the POFA to hold the Defendant liable as registered keeper (and for this they are put to strict proof) and nor is it accepted that £100 can be claimed instead of £1.00, the actual fee paid in this case, but either way, the additional sum claimed, appears to be a disingenuous attempt at excessive recovery.

16. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation against patrons of the parking area.

17. 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. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.


I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

nosferatu1001

I still dont know how you can submit a defence
It is not your claim to defend.
The court should be informed and told to cease the claim, as there is no possibility of it succeeding. I cannot see ifyou have done this.

waamo

Umkomaas wrote: »

Call the CCBC in the morning, report the situation, and ask how you should proceed.

Prepare for a bit of a 'wait' on the phone as they a swamped (probably by private parking cases).

Did you do this?

System

I still dont know how you can submit a defence
It is not your claim to defend.

Have you had a word with the Court.

As Executor you should be able to enter a defence but you need advice from the Court about how to word it.

beamerguy

I too do not understand why you are trying to defend
as you are speaking the words of your dad as to the
happening

CEL ignoring you is not unusual as they are so ignorant

I would tackle the court and if possible pay them a visit
handing them a copy of the death certificate and requesting
such a claim be struck out. Informing the court that
CEL has ignored you
We have yet to see a court judgement against a deceased person

I would also ask Steve Clark of the BPA to intervene
and get this stopped .... steve.c@britishparking.co.uk

This type of scammer, CEL. makes a mockery of the
BPA with their "driving up standards" pretence

Contact the Daily Mail who want to hear such stories
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/cars/article-6251825/Fight-against-private-parking-tickets-campaign-stop-sharks.html

Asking for stories of unfair charges to editor@thisismoney.co.uk

And, SIR GREG KNIGHT who is introducing the new
parking bill
https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/sir-greg-knight/1200

eeebygum1528

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Have you had a word with the Court.

As Executor you should be able to enter a defence but you need advice from the Court about how to word it.

I managed to speak with someone at the court who informed me that until a defence was submitted a decision can't be made re striking case out.

The claim is being answered as an organisation respondent under the litigant friend procedure.

beamerguy

eeebygum1528 wrote: »

I managed to speak with someone at the court who informed me that until a defence was submitted a decision can't be made re striking case out.

The claim is being answered as an organisation respondent under the litigant friend procedure.

I think I can understand that.

You must ensure the court fully understands that CEL
has ignored you

eeebygum1528

beamerguy wrote: »

I think I can understand that.

You must ensure the court fully understands that CEL
has ignored you

thanks I will try the court again as I am not sure at what level the advice came from, it is difficult getting them to be specific though. I understand they were trying to say the MCOL system cannot be shortcut so i must continue until it gets to a stage where a judge will look at it.