Ignored NCP 'fine'; now have County Court Business Centre letter

KeithP

chadlebowski wrote: »

Does the rest of the letter still stand?

I did say yesterday:

KeithP wrote: »

You are past the point of replying to a Letter of Claim.

You now need to concentrate on compiling a Defence.

chadlebowski

Ok - excuse my ignorance, but this isn't something I've had to do before.

Am I still able request photographic evidence, details of the alleged contravention?

Loadsofchildren123

You can, but they'll ignore you
You then say in your defence that they've refused to provide any evidence, in spite of a request

chadlebowski

DEFENCE DRAFT

1. 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. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £60 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'

2. The allegation of the overstay is 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, leaving the car park in question.

2.1. The Claimant is put to strict proof of any breach and of their decision-making in processing the data and the human intervention in deciding to issue a PCN and why, as well as the reasoning behind trying to collect £160 instead of the few pounds tariff, if it is their case that this sum went unpaid.

2.2 The Defendant requires a copy of the contract (the signage terms on the material date) and a full and detailed explanation of the cause of action and on what basis they purport to hold the Defendant liable. The POC alleges that the Defendant was 'the registered keeper and/or the driver' of the vehicle, indicating a failure to identify a Cause of Action. The Claimant is simply offering a menu of choices and failed to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the POC do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

2.3 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 Visitor Centre.

3. The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained.

3.1 The Claimant did not identify the driver

3.2 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.

3.3 The Claimant's demanding letter failed to evidence any contravention or clear/prominent signage

4. 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 to £160. This appears to be an added cost with no reason and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

4.1 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.

5. The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist

5.1 The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read, it is only visible on foot and not in direct line of site meaning you have to go out of your way to look for the sign

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

6.1 In Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 EGLR 154, it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach when unable to fully comply with the terms

7. 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. (I have contacted BW Legal & NCP for details of PCN; I have had no response).

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

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

8. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the
Particulars of Claim.

8.1 The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.

8.2 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 “the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.

8.3 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.

8.4 The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.

8.5 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.’

8.6 On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were efficient 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.

nosferatu1001

" authorised registered keeper " is a nonsense. Just state you were the Keeper.

Why do you give away the drivers identity?

YOU are the DEFENDANT. YOU are the Registered Keeper AND you are the Keeper. THe ONE PIECE OF INFO they MUST not know is the identity of the DRIVER. Yet you give this away!

EDIT YOUR POST, NOW

You have not mentioned POFA Keeper compliance - is this a lack of understanding or you jsut left it out by accident? This MUST be in there.

2.2 is a nonsense copy and paste of entirely different points. You lead with Signage, then end up with poor PoC. Signage andpoor PoC have no relation to each other.

Have you read Post 2 newbeis thread for the example concise defence? ANswer Yes or No

3 talks a b it about POFA but does not aver that the claimant has failed to follow the strict provisions of POFA, including but not limited to.... and then given a list of their failings.
Bizarrely it then has 3.3, which has absolutely nothing to do with the preceeding points. I have no idea why it is there - especially as you have mentioned both these points elsewhere.

4 POFA does not limit double recovery. I have no idea where people think it does. POFA simply prevents the keeper from being liable for more than the sum on the Notice to Keeper.

I gave up after that

Start again
Get your thoughts clear on how you are defending this, and that you must go through in a logicalm consistent manner. Scatter gun, poorly copy and pasted defences will not help you one jot.

chadlebowski

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

I gave up after that

Thanks for the input. I have read the sticky post numerous times.

Regarding the identity of the driver; will this not come out in the witness statement? Why should they not know? What if building my defence is difficult without disclosing this information? And the first post on this thread already gives this away. I have since edited it, but it has been quoted

nosferatu1001

1) Only if you identify the driver
2) If youve read teh sticky you would be aware of Keeper Liability via POFA, and how if they dont know who the driver is, and they have not complied with POFA, the only person they do know - the Keeper - is not liable
3) THen you reveal the drivers identity. But you will have seen, from the dozens of defences on here, that most people manage to create a defence without naming the driver.
4) THen tell people to edit their quotes

KeithP

Again I ask:

KeithP wrote: »

Have you done the Acknowledgement of Service?
Post #7 above tells you how to do that.

chadlebowski

KeithP wrote: »

Again I ask:

Yes. See post on 25-10

The_Deep

I gave up after that

You are trapped in a scam, either pay them or fight them, there is no silver bullet. Read about the game you have joined and watch the video.

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 in the house as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week, hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an
M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread 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

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.







b b


f