We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
PPS - dark car park
Options
DammitChloe
Posts: 43 Forumite
Hi All from another PPS newbie!
What a fantastic resource this forum is, great to see so many knowledgeable people helping others who get bullied by these companies. Hoping the hive will be able to give me a few tips too, for which I will be extremely grateful.
My vehicle received a windscreen ticket in spring 2015. Pay and display car park, very poorly lit, after dark. Photos on the PCN are so dark the outline of the vehicle cannot be seen. I have been to the car park in the last few days, both in daylight and darkness, and taken photos. At the moment there are no lights whatsoever in the car park or on any of the signs, except for the glow from windows of a neighbouring business and a spotlight on the wall of the car park next door. One sign could be lit if a spotlight was actually on, but this could still easily be missed.
I have been contacted as keeper by PPS and the chain that follows, as unfortunately I was advised to ignore everything. Most of it went in the bin. A few weeks ago I received the LBCCC from BWL, which I now know should have been acted upon, but my mother had just received a terminal diagnosis and it was the last thing on my mind. It was only two pages long, one of which was the 'how to pay' section, and didn't have the other documents that my research tells me should have been included. I received claim forms dated less than a week ago and acknowledged these. I've been reading as much as possible on here to construct a defence and I think some of Matilda13's would work for my case. Kudos to everyone who helped construct that one! I've used it as a very rough template, making a few changes, highlighting bits in red that I don't think will apply and mentioning things that I'm not sure about in green. I realise the numbers are wrong! Would someone who speaks legalese mind casting an eye over it please?
Thanks in advance for your time.
1. It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However the Claimant has no cause of action and has filed this claim whilst providing minimal information to the Defendant.
1.1 Having been provided with photos of the car parked, it is not clear that the photos are of the same location as that cited on the alleged parking offence due to conditions of total darkness.
1.2 The defendant is in possession of only very vague details of Particulars of Claim (POC). Any contractual agreement - and thus any breach - is denied.
3. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 (the POFA) has not been complied with. The registered keeper was unaware of the PCN and does not admit to being a driver of the vehicle in question on the date in question, as such the keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time/with mandatory wording.
Not sure if I can use POFA in any way, but the enemy only has keeper details.
3.1 By providing inaccurate detail regarding the location of the alleged offence the claimant has not complied with schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 both in relation to paragraph 7 subsection 2 A, and paragraph 8 subsection 2.
4.1. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction and the Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.
I received the LBCCC, but it was just the standard BWL front page and ‘how to pay’ on the back with no documents as required by the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. Would 4.1 still apply, with a bit of re-wording?
4.2. The vague POC discloses nothing that can lead to a claim in law. The parking event was far too long ago to expect a registered keeper to recall the day or who was driving, and it is believed from the Defendant's research of similar cases, that this Claimant did not use compliant documents to hold a registered keeper liable anyway.
Not sure what the compliant documents are, but I think this applies?
5. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an un-denied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a license to park free. From research of similar cases and given the woeful POC and lack of any previous information, the Defendant doubts that any legitimate interest or clear signage applies in this case.
5. Had any contravention apparently taken place (and this is not confirmed), it can only have been that signage on and around the site in question was small, unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP).
Should I add ‘unlit’ to the description of the signage?
5.1. The Claimant was a member of the BPA at the time and committed to follow its requirements, and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of compliance with the applicable Code of Practice.
6. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Premier Parking Solutions Ltd and that this chain of contracts was valid in its entirety on the date of the alleged offence.
7. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.
8. Prior to any court hearing the Defendant has sent the Claimant a Subject Access Request (SAR) for the following, and to date has only received a response to 8.1 (iii) below:
8.1.
(i) copies of the signs on which the Claimant relies and confirm with photographic evidence, that the signs were in situ on the date of the event.
(ii) Images of the signs that were at the entrance to the site on the date in question. Also to confirm that the signs met the BPA CoP that applied at the time of the alleged parking event.
(iii) copies of any letters sent, including the original PCN and/or Notice to Keeper.
(iv) a full breakdown of the amount of the claim and how the amount was derived.
9. The POFA does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. That sum cannot have exceeded the BPA CoP ceiling of £100 and the Claimant cannot recover additional charges.
I will send a SAR and amend this bit accordingly, unless one of the experts on here advises anything different.
10. The Claimant has inexplicably added 'costs or damages' bolted onto the alleged PCN, despite using a solicitor to file the claim, who must be well aware that the CPR 27.14 does not permit such 'admin' charges to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.
Solicitor’s fees are on the Notice of Claim, and contractual fees are on the claim form, but there’s nothing about damages, so not sure if this applies?
10.1. In any event, the Beavis case confirmed that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead their case in damages and could only collect the already inflated parking charge (in that case, £85) which more than covered the very minimal costs of running an automated/template letter parking regime.
10.2. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show how any alleged costs/damages have been incurred and that it formed a prominent, legible part of any terms on signage, and that it was, in fact, expended. To add vague damages plus alleged 'legal costs' on top is a wholly disingenuous attempt at double recovery, and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.
10.3. Given the fact that BW Legal boasted in Bagri v BW Legal Ltd of processing 'millions' of claims with an admin team (and only a handful of solicitors), the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste PPS robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities.
10.4. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.
11. The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success. Alternatively, the Defendant requests the court to order the Claimant to provide Further and Better Particulars of Claim and allow the Defendant to respond to those POC.
12. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
What a fantastic resource this forum is, great to see so many knowledgeable people helping others who get bullied by these companies. Hoping the hive will be able to give me a few tips too, for which I will be extremely grateful.
My vehicle received a windscreen ticket in spring 2015. Pay and display car park, very poorly lit, after dark. Photos on the PCN are so dark the outline of the vehicle cannot be seen. I have been to the car park in the last few days, both in daylight and darkness, and taken photos. At the moment there are no lights whatsoever in the car park or on any of the signs, except for the glow from windows of a neighbouring business and a spotlight on the wall of the car park next door. One sign could be lit if a spotlight was actually on, but this could still easily be missed.
I have been contacted as keeper by PPS and the chain that follows, as unfortunately I was advised to ignore everything. Most of it went in the bin. A few weeks ago I received the LBCCC from BWL, which I now know should have been acted upon, but my mother had just received a terminal diagnosis and it was the last thing on my mind. It was only two pages long, one of which was the 'how to pay' section, and didn't have the other documents that my research tells me should have been included. I received claim forms dated less than a week ago and acknowledged these. I've been reading as much as possible on here to construct a defence and I think some of Matilda13's would work for my case. Kudos to everyone who helped construct that one! I've used it as a very rough template, making a few changes, highlighting bits in red that I don't think will apply and mentioning things that I'm not sure about in green. I realise the numbers are wrong! Would someone who speaks legalese mind casting an eye over it please?
Thanks in advance for your time.
1. It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However the Claimant has no cause of action and has filed this claim whilst providing minimal information to the Defendant.
1.1 Having been provided with photos of the car parked, it is not clear that the photos are of the same location as that cited on the alleged parking offence due to conditions of total darkness.
1.2 The defendant is in possession of only very vague details of Particulars of Claim (POC). Any contractual agreement - and thus any breach - is denied.
3. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 (the POFA) has not been complied with. The registered keeper was unaware of the PCN and does not admit to being a driver of the vehicle in question on the date in question, as such the keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time/with mandatory wording.
Not sure if I can use POFA in any way, but the enemy only has keeper details.
3.1 By providing inaccurate detail regarding the location of the alleged offence the claimant has not complied with schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 both in relation to paragraph 7 subsection 2 A, and paragraph 8 subsection 2.
4.1. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction and the Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.
I received the LBCCC, but it was just the standard BWL front page and ‘how to pay’ on the back with no documents as required by the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. Would 4.1 still apply, with a bit of re-wording?
4.2. The vague POC discloses nothing that can lead to a claim in law. The parking event was far too long ago to expect a registered keeper to recall the day or who was driving, and it is believed from the Defendant's research of similar cases, that this Claimant did not use compliant documents to hold a registered keeper liable anyway.
Not sure what the compliant documents are, but I think this applies?
5. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an un-denied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a license to park free. From research of similar cases and given the woeful POC and lack of any previous information, the Defendant doubts that any legitimate interest or clear signage applies in this case.
5. Had any contravention apparently taken place (and this is not confirmed), it can only have been that signage on and around the site in question was small, unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP).
Should I add ‘unlit’ to the description of the signage?
5.1. The Claimant was a member of the BPA at the time and committed to follow its requirements, and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of compliance with the applicable Code of Practice.
6. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Premier Parking Solutions Ltd and that this chain of contracts was valid in its entirety on the date of the alleged offence.
7. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.
8. Prior to any court hearing the Defendant has sent the Claimant a Subject Access Request (SAR) for the following, and to date has only received a response to 8.1 (iii) below:
8.1.
(i) copies of the signs on which the Claimant relies and confirm with photographic evidence, that the signs were in situ on the date of the event.
(ii) Images of the signs that were at the entrance to the site on the date in question. Also to confirm that the signs met the BPA CoP that applied at the time of the alleged parking event.
(iii) copies of any letters sent, including the original PCN and/or Notice to Keeper.
(iv) a full breakdown of the amount of the claim and how the amount was derived.
9. The POFA does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. That sum cannot have exceeded the BPA CoP ceiling of £100 and the Claimant cannot recover additional charges.
I will send a SAR and amend this bit accordingly, unless one of the experts on here advises anything different.
10. The Claimant has inexplicably added 'costs or damages' bolted onto the alleged PCN, despite using a solicitor to file the claim, who must be well aware that the CPR 27.14 does not permit such 'admin' charges to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.
Solicitor’s fees are on the Notice of Claim, and contractual fees are on the claim form, but there’s nothing about damages, so not sure if this applies?
10.1. In any event, the Beavis case confirmed that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead their case in damages and could only collect the already inflated parking charge (in that case, £85) which more than covered the very minimal costs of running an automated/template letter parking regime.
10.2. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show how any alleged costs/damages have been incurred and that it formed a prominent, legible part of any terms on signage, and that it was, in fact, expended. To add vague damages plus alleged 'legal costs' on top is a wholly disingenuous attempt at double recovery, and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.
10.3. Given the fact that BW Legal boasted in Bagri v BW Legal Ltd of processing 'millions' of claims with an admin team (and only a handful of solicitors), the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste PPS robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities.
10.4. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.
11. The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success. Alternatively, the Defendant requests the court to order the Claimant to provide Further and Better Particulars of Claim and allow the Defendant to respond to those POC.
12. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
0
Comments
-
What is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?0
-
Hi Keith. 13th September, but there was a !!!! up at Northampton so it arrived last week.0
-
OK.
Does the accompanying letter say something about when you need to respond to the claim?0 -
Ah, one of the ones the CCBC forgot to even issue. Did you get a Default Judgment and have to kick up a fuss to overturn it?
The CCBC should be ashamed and IMHO should have addressed the burden on the courts and kicked some of the worst claims/claimants into touch as vexatious litigants, sent them warnings/struck claims out. Or raised the issue at higher levels to stop this current abuse of the court process, which the CCBC clearly cannot keep up with, and why should our court system have to be the PPCs' cheap debt collector service?
BTW good research.
Yes to all your questions, you're on the right track, yes you can use the POFA as PPS didn't when they were in the BPA in 2015. Leave in the bit about damages, as the way they describe their costs is ambiguous and as clear as mud, so you may as well raise an objection to their ability to claim damages.
Did you also see PhoenixFreeSpirit's revised defence (NOT the first post) on pepipoo:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=123458&st=40
Post #54 has the defence I wrote (as SchoolRunMum) for that poster.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Yes, 19 days from October 18th.0
-
Sorry, just replied to Keith, hello CM! Good to see you back and thank you. I will have a look at the link now.0
-
Then you need to do the Acknowledgement of Service by Tuesday 6th November, 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.DammitChloe wrote: »Yes, 19 days from October 18th.
There is a high probability that you won't be able to use MCOL to file your AoS, but try it first. You may need to send a copy of the paper form as a pdf attachment to an email in a similar way, and to the same email address, as described for the Defence below.
Having done the AoS, you then have until 4pm on Tuesday 20th November 2018 to file your Defence.
Nearly four weeks. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very 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.0 -
Thanks Keith. MCOL won't let me do anything because it's set aside, so I've emailed the acknowledgement (or tried to!). I'm sure I followed their template, but I got an email back telling me to follow the template...
Have replied to ask for clarification.
CM, I agree with you completely about the parking mob. I also had a grovelling letter of apology from CCBC.
I need to get some sleep as am currently a carer for my mum as well as working, so have been doing most of my research at night. Will sleep soundly knowing that the hive are on the case, and get back to this in the afternoon when I have a few hours spare.
Thanks again both of you.0 -
See my latest edit to post #8.0
-
Hadn’t thought of that Keith, good plan. Quick question - is the SAR best sent by email for speed or snail mail to keep the email address private?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards