MPC Parking Charge and County Court

Redx

camshron18 wrote: »

Thank you for the reply,

Ok I thought it was a defence, maybe I am confused on this one. Can you remind me what WS means?

have you read post #5 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread ?


anytime you ask something covered in that thread you will be referred back to it

camshron18

Thank you, and taken on board.

Having reflected and adjusted, here is Draft 2 of my defence... how does this look now, any better?



In the County Court
Claim NO: to be added


Between:
Excel Parking Services LTD (Claimant)

-and-

?? (Defendant)


1 The Defendant is the registered lessee of the vehicle in question and driver of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2 The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at Derby Street, Burton upon Trent, DE14 2JJ, 05/02/2018.

3 The facts of the matter are that the Defendant had paid the £3 tariff requested for the overnight car park, online, in the hotel bed room, 90 minutes after the alleged parking notice had been placed onto the windscreen of the car. Therefore, the Claimant had received the monetary value for the overnight parking of £3.

4 Therefore, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contract liability, or trepass. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant’s purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

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. The signage is attached to a pole at the exist of the car park behind a pub advertisement board and merely states “Pay and Display – Private Land”. It is therefore, denied that the Claimants’ signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

6 The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that is has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

7 The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012, in schedule 4, Para 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.

8 In summary, it is the Defendant’s position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and no real prospect of success. The Claimant’s particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

*Signature and Date to be inserted*

KeithP

Suggest you remove the vehicle registration number from that post.

It uniquely identifies you and your parking incident.


I would suggest that para 3. could be better written as:

3 The facts of the matter are that the Defendant had paid the £3 tariff requested for the overnight car park. Therefore, the Claimant had received the monetary value for the overnight parking of £3.

"at the exist of the car park "??

camshron18

Hi KeithP,

Thank you for your comments and eyes on the draft. I have edited and below is draft 3.

Really appreciate all of your help on this, how does it now look?

Regards


In the County Court
Claim NO: to be added


Between:
Excel Parking Services LTD (Claimant)

-and-

?? (Defendant)


1 The Defendant is the registered lessee of the vehicle in question and driver of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2 The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at Derby Street, Burton upon Trent, DE14 2JJ, 05/02/2018.

3 The facts of the matter are that the Defendant had paid the £3 tariff requested for the overnight car. Therefore, the Claimant had received the monetary value for the overnight parking of £3.

4 Therefore, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contract liability, or trepass. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant’s purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

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. The signage is attached to a pole at the exit of the car park behind a pub advertisement board and merely states “Pay and Display – Private Land”. It is therefore, denied that the Claimants’ signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

6 The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that is has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

7 The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012, in schedule 4, Para 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.

8 In summary, it is the Defendant’s position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and no real prospect of success. The Claimant’s particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

*Signature and Date to be inserted*

camshron18

Hi All,

I just wanted to get your final thoughts on the above, would you say this is now ready for submission for my defence?

Regards

camshron18

I am a lee-see on the car and the leasing company have already named me as the driver, is this a problem?

KeithP

camshron18 wrote: »

I am a lee-see on the car and the leasing company have already named me as the driver, is this a problem?

How can the lease company do that? Were they present at the time of the parking incident?

The best the lease company can do in name you as the keeper - the day to day keeper, that is.

camshron18

No they were not present at the time of the incident.

Ok that makes sense, so I think they know I am the registered keeper via the lease company, however they have no proof I was the driver of the car at the incident date and time.

With this in mind, I have adjusted points 1 and inserted 4 and 5 into the Defence statement as per below... is this better?

Thank you for all your help

1 The Defendant is the registered lessee of the vehicle in question with the vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2 The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at Derby Street, Burton upon Trent, DE14 2JJ, 05/02/2018.

3 The facts of the matter are that the Defendant had paid the £3 tariff requested for the overnight car. Therefore, the Claimant had received the monetary value for the overnight parking of £3.

4 The Claimant does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle on the material date. 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.

5 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 Therefore, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contract liability, or trepass. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant’s purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

7 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. The signage is attached to a pole at the exit of the car park behind a pub advertisement board and merely states “Pay and Display – Private Land”. It is therefore, denied that the Claimants’ signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

8 The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that is has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

9 The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012, in schedule 4, Para 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.

10 In summary, it is the Defendant’s position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and no real prospect of success. The Claimant’s particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

*Signature and Date to be inserted*

Coupon-mad

You are not the registered keeper, that's not what we said.

You are the lessee. You should use para 13/14 of the POFA Schedule 4 to your advantage, because the parking firm will not have served a compliant Notice to Hirer document to you.

A lessee should not admit to being the driver, IMHO, and you do not have to (unless a Judge asks outright). You have the POFA on your side and should include it in your defence.

Search the forum for defence true Notice to Hirer and you should find one (ADVANCED SEARCH - & 'SHOW RESULTS AS POSTS').

camshron18

Hi Coupon-mad, thank you for raising this point with me, very valuble indeed.

I have inserted points 4, 5 and 6 into this Defence now following your points.

Is this better?

Regards

---


1 The Defendant is the registered hirer of the vehicle in question with the vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2 The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at Derby Street, Burton upon Trent, DE14 2JJ, 05/02/2018.

3 The facts of the matter are that the Defendant had paid the £3 tariff requested for the overnight car. Therefore, the Claimant had received the monetary value for the overnight parking of £3.

4 The Claimant does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle on the material date. 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.!

5 As stated in Point 1, the defendant is the hirer of the vehicle. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 14(2)(a) states that a condition for the creditor to pursue the hirer is that “the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper”. The documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper have never been provided, thus the claimant has failed to comply with the POFA 2012.

6 A copy of the documents from paragraph 13(2) have not been sent to the Defendant. I have evidence of a “Notice to Driver” referring to the same alleged parking offence. The original notice to owner/keeper haven’t been forwarded in the manner of which is stated under POFA 2012. Also, part C, Section 4 of the IPC Code of Practice states:
“4.1 Where a creditor receives notification from a vehicle hire company that at the specified time the relevant vehicle was under a hire agreement then a Notice to Hirer
must be sent to the hirer” The Defendant puts the Claimant to proof that any “Notice to Hirer” documents have ever been sent.

7 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.

8 Therefore, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contract liability, or trepass. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant’s purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

9 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. The signage is attached to a pole at the exit of the car park behind a pub advertisement board and merely states “Pay and Display – Private Land”. It is therefore, denied that the Claimants’ signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

10 The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that is has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.!

11 The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012, in schedule 4, Para 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.

12 In summary, it is the Defendant’s position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and no real prospect of success. The Claimant’s particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

*Signature and Date to be inserted*