Letter of Claim from BW Legal / Norwich Traffic Control

slash1551

Is that really a BPA approved sign ??

No idea! But, surely Primacy of Contract is all that matters here? Their signage cannot override my contract with the landowner? Especially as it mentions no need to display a permit, nor states the terms can be varied.

beamerguy

slash1551 wrote: »

No idea! But, surely Primacy of Contract is all that matters here? Their signage cannot override my contract with the landowner? Especially as it mentions no need to display a permit, nor states the terms can be varied.

You are right.

Please wait for the experts on here to comment

System

The space in question is leased via an Estate Agent acting on behalf of the landowner.

The contract has already been formed via the Estate Agent. Since these are essentially simple issues then take the simple route and ask the EA to confirm

a) Did the landowner hire NTC
b) If so, why is NTC breaching the contract already in place
c) if not, why is NYC operating on his/her land.

Why make it War and Peace, when it should be no more than a couple of paragraphs.

As an aside, why didn't you ask these questions earlier rather than let it get this far? Or if you did, what did they say?

slash1551

The contract has already been formed via the Estate Agent. Since these are essentially simple issues then take the simple route and ask the EA to confirm

a) Did the landowner hire NTC
b) If so, why is NTC breaching the contract already in place
c) if not, why is NYC operating on his/her land.

I have already spoken with the EA back in April - please see responses below:
a - Yes.
b - Estate Agent has spoken to NTC whose response was "it's in our (NTC) t&c's to display a valid permit, it's too far gone in the process now other than pay the fine/go to court".
c - N/A.

System

If you are up for a bit of fun, start your own claim against NTC based on their tortious interference with an existing contract plus harassment.

It's all a nonsense game / !!!! waving for these guys who really should get a life. But if you want to see them in court, you'll have to get them there.

slash1551

If you are up for a bit of fun, start your own claim against NTC based on their tortious interference with an existing contract plus harassment.

I fully expect this to go the distance and will counterclaim. Question is: do I wait and do a counterclaim or begin my own separate claim?

I forgot to mention I have since had another PCN issued to another vehicle I am registered keeper for in October 2018; same space, still NTC. Can I hope they follow a similar tact and have two separate counterclaims? Incorrectly accessing my details from the DVLA, passing on my data to third parties, tortious interference, harassment etc...

slash1551

I have now received a letter from the Northampton CBCC.
Issue Date: 07 JAN 2019
Particulars of Claim:
The Claimant's Claim is for the sum of £100.00 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 25/01/2018 (Issue Date) at (TIME) at (LOCATION).
The PCN relates to Skoda under registration (REG). The terms of the PCN allowed the Defendant 28 days from the Issue Date to pay the PCN, but the Defendant failed to do so. Despite demand having been made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.
The Claim also includes Statutory Interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum a daily rate of 0.02 from 25/01/2018 to 04/01/2019 being an amount of £6.90.
The Claimant also claims £60.00 contractual costs pursuant to PCN Terms and Conditions.
Costs Breakdown:

• Amount claimed - £166.90
• Court fee - £25.00
• Legal representative's costs - £50
• Total amount - £241.90

I have done the AoS leaving the defence blank. Draft defence below (used and adjusted from the Newbies Thread relating to own space parking).

Help me have some fun and begin a counter-claim! :j

DEFENCE

Preliminary
1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.

Background
3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with [provider] with [number] of named drivers permitted to use it.

4. It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]

5. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
5.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
5.2.1. there was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
5.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

5.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
6. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.

7. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

7. Accordingly it is denied that:
7.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
7.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
7.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

8. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

9. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

10. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.

Coupon-mad

The Claimant's Claim is for the sum of £100.00 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 25/01/2018 (Issue Date) at (TIME) at (LOCATION).
The PCN relates to Skoda under registration (REG). The terms of the PCN allowed the Defendant 28 days from the Issue Date to pay the PCN, but the Defendant failed to do so. Despite demand having been made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.
The Claim also includes Statutory Interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum a daily rate of 0.02 from 25/01/2018 to 04/01/2019 being an amount of £6.90.
The Claimant also claims £60.00 contractual costs pursuant to PCN Terms and Conditions.

So they don't even set out what the terms were and how they were breached! So much for 'particulars of claim'!

My contract was also in place before Norwich Traffic Control began enforcing the spaces.

You should state that. Have a look at bargepole's example residential defence*, which is much more concise and talks about the date the leaseholder or tenant moved in and the fact the scumbags rocked up later.


* another one linked in the NEWBIES thread.

KeithP

slash1551 wrote: »

I have now received a letter from the Northampton CBCC.
Issue Date: 07 JAN 2019

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th January, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 11th February 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over a month away. 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 suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. 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'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Ricardo1961

We have a similar experience with NTC but in our case, the driver was making a delivery to a block of flats on behalf of a resident. He was prevented from leaving the site after 8 minutes by the ticket warden, who pushed him and blocked his access to the drivers seat. This was near Norwich City Football ground. The assault was reported to the Police the following day and a statement taken. When the NTK was received, it had one photo which was neither timed or dated. The date and time were typed below. There was no other pictures taken to show the 10 minute period to read and accept the terms and conditions was observed as per the BPA & IPC standards. I have requested details of the landowner in late November but apart from a recent note to from BWL to say NTC have not yet responded. Before BWL got involved, the registered keeper got a letter from a debt collector. If they cannot prove how long you were parked there, could this be used as part of your defence? Assuming that there is only one undated/timed picture as in our case?