NTC Parking Tickets - Gone to court papers

kris.cross

Good morning

I have read the newbies guide and looking through the threads as much as I can and my head is spinning , I have two county claim forms and just starting to panic at bit.

So they are for two dates
01/05/2017 and 02/05/2017

They start off with the original letter from NTC (norwich traffic control) advised I have parked in a private residence without a permit. A driver may of left my car at a friends while in London and may of came back to two windscreen notices but didn't take much notice.

Then the letters get passed on to their legal company BW legal services - They have sent the letter offering discount to pay now or extending time before taking to court, all the usual threats.

The most up to date letter is from BW legal saying they are taking to court claims , then a letter from Northampton court - claim form (there are two of these due to the two dates and seperate PCN)

Both asking for
Amount claimed 185.24
Court Fee 25
Legal Rep 50
Total 260.24

I'm just a little overwhelmed by coming back to these letters and trying to piece together what to do, appeal to BW or has it gone past that and I need to start think about defending the claim?

Any help is appreciated sorry to repeat stuff just want to know next so I don't get CCJ

Thanks

nosferatu1001

What is teh date of issue of each claim?
Have you ever contacted the parking company or BW? If NO then you MUST edit your post so the DRIVER cannot be identified YOU are the keeper, THE DRIVER may have parked....

Go read the obvious NEWBIES thread, POST TWO.

kris.cross

Both for the 25th September

I have not contacted either BW or the parking company as of yet

Wasn't sure to contact either

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 25th September, you have until 14th 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 more than two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a top class Defence, but don't leave it until the last minute.


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.



Can you please post the exact contents of the Particulars of Claim box on that Claim Form - hiding personal data of course.


Very important:

Do the Acknowledgement of Service this weekend at the latest.

The_Deep

Both asking for
Amount claimed 185.24
Court Fee 25
Legal Rep 50
Total 260.24

That is at least £60 more than the law allows, copy the correspondence to the Solicitors regulatory body, the SRA,

http://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.page

complaining that they are attempting to obtain monies in excess of that which the law allows. Complain also to your MP

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.

kris.cross

Great, I have done the Acknowledgement of Service for both claims on the MCOL.

the Particulars of Claim are as follows:
The claimeants claim is for the sum of £100 being monies due from the defendant to the claimaint for the respect of a parking charge notice on 01/05/2017 at #####

The PCN related to #### under reg ######

The terms of the PCN allowed the defendant 28 days from Issue date to pay the PCN, but the defendant failed to do so. Despite demand havving been made the defendant has failed to settle their liability. The claim also includes Statuary interest pursuant to section 69 to the county courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum a day 00.2 from 01/05/2017 to 24/09/2018 being amount of £10.21. The claimant also claims £75.00 contractual costs pursuant to PCN terms and conditions;

So basically prepare a defense , complain to sra they are claiming to much and also complain to my local MP?

Thanks for any help given

kris.cross

Morning guys,

Please see my drafted defence - any advice to add anytbing remove or edit please let me know all your help is really appreciated!

Thanks in advance

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: ######

BETWEEN:

#######

-and-

######## (Defendant)


DEFENCE STATEMENT


1. The defendant was not the driver of the vehicle for the period in question.
2. The claimant has not identified the driver.
3. The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained. The Defendant does not know who the driver was. He has made reasonable enquiries of third parties who were authorized to drive the said vehicle at the time of the alleged incident. None have admitted that they were the driver because they cannot remember, and the Defendant cannot remember who used the car on the date in question 01/05/2017. The Defendant has no means of finding out who the driver was, and in any event is not obliged to do so by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 or any other legislation, or pursuant to any contractual obligation.
As a previous keeper of the vehicle the defendant has not received any evidence.
a: evidence regarding the alleged contravention.
b: evidence of the identity of the driver.
The above requests have been complied with.
4 . With regard to the Claimant’s assertion that the Defendant, as keeper of the vehicle, should be presumed to be the driver unless he sufficiently rebuts this presumption, which it claims is a principle established by Elliott v Loake 1983 Crim LR 36, I dispute it:
The case relied upon does not provide that any such presumption can or should be made, nor that it is for the Defendant to rebut it. A claim is for the Claimant to prove and there is no reverse burden of proof in respect of parking charges; in addition the case was a criminal case.
In the case relied upon there was overwhelming evidence that the keeper of the car was driving it at the relevant time – there is no such evidence in this Claim..
5. To be liable as the “Keeper” of a vehicle under paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the Act” and “the Schedule” respectively), paragraph 4(2)of the Schedule clearly states that this is only if each of the four conditions set out in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 of the Schedule have been complied with. The Claimant has failed to comply with those conditions, as set out below. Having failed to comply with the conditions, there is no legal basis whatsoever to enforce the parking charge against the Defendant as the vehicle’s registered keeper. There is no other basis, at common law or by statute, for the Defendant to be held liable for the parking charges which are the subject matter of this Claim
6. The claimants signage specifically cites the driver as with whom a contract is agreed,
7. The claimants letters to myself have again specifically cited the driver of the car.
8. If a valid contract exists, the parking charges sought amount to a penalty which is unenforceable and is an unfair term contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
9. The claimant cannot show any loss, as the car park as mentioned is sparsely populated on an evening when the supposed contravention occurred and so would have sufficient spaces to accommodate any vehicle during the time period in question.
10. The Notice to Keeper is not a valid Notice to Keeper served in accordance with Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and therefore the Defendant cannot be held liable as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question
11. The Particulars of Claim disclose no cause of action and are in breach of several aspects of the Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”), so much so that they are incoherent and do not amount to any recognisable claim. They should be struck out;

I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

##/10/2018

kris.cross

going to submit this today so hopefully is okay if anyone has any advice

The_Deep

When you write to the SRA you might also complain about the mention of Elliot V Loake.

The solicitors are well aware that this will not fly, several judges have rubbished it in court. They are using it to confuse and intimidate. Conduct, imo, likely to bring their profession into disrepute.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/10/excel-parking-youve-been-gladstoned.html

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/elliot-vs-loake/

http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t110301.html

Coupon-mad

Not DEFENCE STATEMENT

Just DEFENCE

7. The claimants letters to myself have again specifically cited the driver of the car.

Not relevant to a defence, and you've dropped into first person. All points should be in the third person, as the Defendant.

You don't seem to have any point saying the Defendant believes there was no contract terms prominently displayed that were bound to be seen and agreed, no clear signage and no conduct of any driver of the D's car, that would have given rise to any £100 penalty.

I see nothing distinguishing your case from Beavis and no mention of the lack of 'legitimate interest'.

I see nothing stating they are not the landowners and have no standing/authority.

I see nothing disputing the made-up added on 'costs they pretend were incurred.

All standard points that can win a claim.

You need to remove this as there is no argument to be made about 'no loss':

9. The claimant cannot show any loss, as the car park as mentioned is sparsely populated on an evening when the supposed contravention occurred and so would have sufficient spaces to accommodate any vehicle during the time period in question.

You have a bog standard BW Legal claim so why not include all the usual stuff you see in any BW Legal claim, like here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74947956#Comment_74947956

HTH

kris.cross

Sorry for being such a Newbie

And thank you Coupon.mad - your help was greatly appreciated

I submitted my defence , printed , signed , scanned and emailed.

They marked it down as received on MCOL on the 30th

How long would you wait to see if it has been defended - Seen people mention say chase up after a couple days

What's the best way?