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

nosferatu1001

I dont take PMs, OP. I dont have time.

KeithP

chadlebowski wrote: »

Yes. See post on 25-10

Sorry. I missed that.

Coupon-mad

So it's a visitor centre with a Pay & Display machine is it? The defence tells me that but little else, but also talks about an alleged overstay.

So tell us about the location, the contravention alleged and whether there was a PDT machine?

Small overstay or hours over?

Which visitor centre (that's what the Defence draft says)? Much of it makes little sense.

Start again with a draft with facts at the top, based on bargepole's concise defence template, as nosferatu1001 pointed you to:

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

chadlebowski

Just to clarify - it is acceptable to say:

"it is my understanding, as the keeper, that the driver etc etc etc.@

chadlebowski

Coupon-mad wrote: »

So it's a visitor centre with a Pay & Display machine is it? The defence tells me that but little else, but also talks about an alleged overstay.

So tell us about the location, the contravention alleged and whether there was a PDT machine?

Small overstay or hours over?

Which visitor centre (that's what the Defence draft says)? Much of it makes little sense.

Start again with a draft with facts at the top, based on bargepole's concise defence template, as nosferatu1001 pointed you to:

It's an NCP in Worthing. It has PDT (assuming that's a Pay and Display machine). There is ANPR in use.
The car was at the claimed address, from approx. 6pm to 10pm. There is a night rate, and the driver believed the correct payment was made.
The PCN shows only one photograph (unclear if its entry\exit). It does not detail the alleged overstay against parking paid for. Any overstay will be a matter of minutes.
I have contacted BWLegal for details, as well as NCP. I am planning on returning to the location to photograph the signs. I no longer have the PCN, or the parking receipt.

Coupon-mad

chadlebowski wrote: »

Just to clarify - it is acceptable to say:

"it is my understanding, as the keeper, that the driver etc etc etc.

Yes.

The car was at the claimed address, from approx. 6pm to 10pm. There is a night rate, and the driver believed the correct payment was made.
The PCN shows only one photograph (unclear if its entry\exit). It does not detail the alleged overstay against parking paid for. Any overstay will be a matter of minutes.

Say the above near the start of the defence.

chadlebowski

UPDATE:
I photographed the signage at the carpark. It posted on a low box, in a very small font, immediately next to the entrance boom gate. I will defend on grounds of unclear signage.
I have also contacted BWLegal for clarification of the alleged overstay duration etc. They have come back asking to clear up a discrepancy with my address before they can respond. A further email has now asked for my D.O.B, and for consent that I'd like them to send correspondence via email (under data protection regulations). Is this stalling? Can I add this to the defence?

Quentin

It's info that looks relevant to them establishing your identity


No mileage in it as far as your defence goes

chadlebowski

DRAFT DEFENSE:

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

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date at the site it question, from approximately 6pm to 10pm. The PCN issued shows the vehicle either entering or exiting the site. It does not specify the length of the alleged overstay, and any period of unpaid of parking would be a period of minutes.

3. It is my understanding that the driver had paid for sufficient parking. The car park has a night rate in effect, and the driver believed that this was applicable. On the material date, there was an event at the adjacent cinema. There were many other customers in the car park at this time, who were also attending the cinema’s event. There was a queue forming and the parking was purchased in a hurry.

4. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

6. The Defendant has since contacted the Claimant to ascertain the details of the Claim, but this information has not been supplied.

5. Further and in the alternative, 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, 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, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

9. 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.

chadlebowski

I have submitted the defence, which was passed to the claimant, who wishes to proceed with the claim. I have been sent a copy of the claimant's directions questionnaire, although I have yet to receive mine. Is this normal?

BWLegal have since written to me, setting out the client's position. This includes a copy of the land registry, and copies of the ANPR photographs. The vehicle entered at 17h54 and left at 20h46. The allegation relates to overstay. Despite my request, the length of time purchased was not given.

BWLegal have kindly offered to 'help', and amicably resolve the matter by giving me 14 days to settle the debt with the client. That is such a kind and generous offer.

My defence was submitted before this information (ANPR photos & times) was in my possession. I did mention that any alleged overstay would be a matter of minutes. Does the grace period apply to a night rate, as this comes into effect from 18h00?

Any other input would be appreciated. TA!