[ En Te See] NTK ignored :( [Bee UU Legal] follow up advice please

Coupon-mad

Your alternative #5 is fine, except you haven't told the Judge what a 'NTK' is (acronyms we know & use here, are not automatically known to Judges).

And I would add a 5.1. - 5.4., copied from the 4.1. - 4.4. here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75436898#Comment_75436898

Your defence covers the bases and looks good to me - but if the car was only onsite for a 'petty amount of time' you can presumably add a point about breach of the IPC CoP re mandatory grace periods?

RippedOffBritain

Thanks CM, Will certainly do that ref 5 etc.. completed in Green so additions now in original post with green text

re the grace period 'would that apply' in this case of being not a Pay-&-Display carpark but an "enter details on the terminal in the health center " Type??.

Whilst I know it wasn't long I am not 100 certain of the time actually spent on the car park as I haven't been furnished with the entry time I just know it wasn't LONG..?
Is there mileage in stating that a grace period would need to be or should be applied as the signs were not able to be read until stopped got out and viewed close up etc whereby any decision to then leave the car park would obviously take time? I have now Requested the SAR information from BW Legal as well, I hadn't actually sent that email previously it was sat in my drafts folder I know I haven't helped myself either...I had also requested that BW Legal pass on the SAR Request but only tonight, not previously hence leaving them out of the Defence point.

Le_Kirk

OP, just in case you had trouble finding this, as it is hidden right at the bottom of their privacy policy page, here is a link. Scroll nearly to the bottom of the page to a paragraph entitled Your Right of Access or Contact.

RippedOffBritain

Thanks, Le_Kirk... I hadn't found it hidden away there at the bottom like that even after I had your original comment.,..

Having found that loooong page of 'info' and seeing that they unashamedly seem to think they have the "Right" to keep your data for 6 years??? !!!!!!?? wheredo they get off? surely they clearly cannot adhere to the GDPR regulations if they do not request your permission for the data? Or have I missunderstood?

in any case, I am even more incensed than I was before:mad:

RippedOffBritain

IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE
CLAIM No XXXXXX
BETWEEN:
NORWICH TRAFFIC CONTROL LIMITED (Claimant)
-and-
XXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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 XXXXXXX of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay, (whilst displaying a Valid Blue Badge) for Disabled Blue Badge Holders, allocated to NHS Adelaide Street Health Centre at the car park adjacent to NHS Adelaide Street Health Centre, opposite Lloyds Chemist, at the junction between Adelaide Street and West End Street.

3. The Particulars of Claim makes no assertion as to whether the Defendant is being pursued as the Registered Keeper and or the Driver of the vehicle?. This Lack of assertion indicates 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.
Assume this applies as the poc simply says:-

https://nfil.es/s/D0gILl hxxps://nfil.es/s/D0gILl can someone sort the link please

Appologies the picture didn’t copy across so I was asking for clarification for information that wasn’t provided, does my re-write suffice in red?



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.

Again assume this is correct based on the lack of detail in the POC just ‘he owes’

5. a) Contrary to the Data Protection Act 2018 and General Data Protection Regulation the Claimant has refused to release any information relating to the alleged incident, by not responding to a postal SAR request in over two months (Proof of posting available)

5. b) No Data Protection Officer information was available on the Claimants website.

5. c) The Original Notice to Keeper (NTK) was sent showing, one, timed dated EXIT Photograph only, bearing No ‘Entry time’ information at all. I firmly believe that this was a deliberate ploy because the ‘Entry time’ would have shown the petty amount of time the vehicle was ‘onsite’ which would have assisted the defendant in any appeal and even prevented the sending of the Notice To Keeper in the first instance, if the Decision had actually been referred to a ‘Human’.

5. d) This lack of full information and documentation has left the defendant severely disadvantaged and prejudiced in trying to form an accurate defence.

5. e) A refusal to supply any data, evidence or information about the contract or the alleged breach in the pre-court phase also rides roughshod over the 2017 pre-action protocol for debt claims (the PAP), a mandatory protocol with which the Claimant and their ‘robo-claim’ solicitors are more than familiar. By abandoning the requirements of the PAP and the Practice Direction and refusing to supply data the Claimant is seeking to deny me access to the most basic documents and information.

5. f) The Defendant suggests that, when it comes to the matter of costs, the Claimant's wholly unreasonable conduct must be considered, with indemnity costs in the Defendant's favour. The Claimant will be aware that the court has the power to award costs against even a successful Claimant.

5. g) This notoriously litigious parking firm are using a solicitor which files tens of thousands of parking claims per annum and thus the claimant has no excuse for ignoring the relevant protocols and DPA law and cannot be granted relief from costs sanctions.

5. h) On 24th January this year, in a similarly un-evidenced / lacking in particulars parking firm claim (PCM v Mr A, claim number E7GF9C9V) at Edmonton Court, DDJ Genn dismissed the claim and awarded the Defendant costs on the indemnity basis in the sum of £1250, with the Judge stating in an Order that will be produced in evidence: 'Claimant is to pay Defendant's costs (assessed in the sum of £1250) pursuant to CPR P5 27.14 because of its unreasonable conduct in not responding to Defendant [...] and non- compliance with the pre-action protocol for debt claims'.

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, has no clear signage at entrance to the carpark 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 a) 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, £60. The claim includes an additional £40 for late payment and an additional £60,+int. for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at ‘double recovery’.

8. b) The Proof that this Additional £60 is ‘fictitious’ is borne out in the way it has been noted and portrayed in the various Letters received from the Claimant, in the initial correspondence through various letters from BW Legal to the County Court Claim form where the amount swaps from one column to another and back again, changing from a Claimant cost to Solicitors cost then returning to the Claimant again.

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.

Name
Signature
Date
:beer::beer::beer::beer:

KeithP

RippedOffBritain wrote: »

Assume this applies as the poc simply says:-



Appologies the picture didn’t copy across so I was asking for clarification for information that wasn’t provided, does my re-write suffice in red?

There is no place for pictures in a Defence. A Defence is purely narrative.

In any case, re-stating the Claimant's Particulars of Claim is unnecessary.

Coupon-mad

If it's a hidden keypad case why not adapt the hidden keypad Odeon defence?

RippedOffBritain

Apologies for failing again...computer is on its last legs and is crashing 'for fun right now....
I was posting the pic of the poc so that it could be checked that my 'rewrite' of[3] was 'correct'... Rather than expect y'all to know what was in the poc.

I'll check that again CM...

RippedOffBritain

Thanks for the suggestion, but in the limited time available since seeing your suggestion I haven't been able to find the exact original defence you refer to, but have found your extensive rewriting (where you amended the Andre Agassi inclusion, or rather omitted it ) and so much of that was 'that instance' related and so powerful because of the additional information.

Clearly, this is Wholly my own fault for not finding time to do it in a timely manner, Just offering some reasoning for not including it, particularly as I don't have any supporting patron/purchaser evidence either.

I'm going to have to put up with the consequences of what I have Now as about to email it, so THANKS again to ALL that have commented, including the friendly ridicule at the start, as it was, 'once re-read' totally appropriate :rotfl:

The support here whilst often 'hard love' through necessity, is fantastic and the process (well aware its really only starting now) has been illuminating in an extremely infuriating way.:mad:

Thanks again, will no doubt be back soon for WS and evidence advice too, but will try to create it all through research of "the sticky" first.

THANKS so far though, as I would almost certainly have cracked under the strain or gone to court completely underprepared:o

ROB

Edit:- I've emailed as described in the provided manner,received the acknowledgement of receipt and just checked and it has been marked as received on MCOL too

Le_Kirk

RippedOffBritain wrote: »

Thanks for the suggestion, but in the limited time available since seeing your suggestion I haven't been able to find the exact original defence you refer to,

If it's not too late, try this link - found by searching hidden keypad odeon.