Claim form Vehicle control services

Franky2301

AOS submitted .. working on th defence now!

Redx

you have a month to hone the defence , so dont rush it


make sure you get the SAR request in asap so that you get copies of all their paperwork , pictures , contracts etc (the may refuse the contract but ask anyway) - you want all their evidence and the GDPR 2018 is the way to get it all, through the SAR to their DPO (data protection, like the old DPA) - and its now free and has been for over 6 months


they cause you work, you cause them work

twhitehousescat

But , the parking attendant told the person they could not park there and to move the vehicle


throwing up to fingers to him , has caused the ticket

Redx

twhitehousescat wrote: »

But , the parking attendant told the person they could not park there and to move the vehicle

throwing up to fingers to him , has caused the ticket

maybe so, but the KEEPER has received the postal notice and subsequently received the court claim (supposedly the keeper was not the driver)

so unless the PPC has followed POFA2012, then why bother the keeper ?

so the KEEPER is defending the claim , when VCS should actually be pursuing an unknown driver

Franky2301

The SAR has been emailed, including requests for all documentation/photographic evidence etc, V5C has also been included as proof of RK, GDPR regulations were highlighted in the letter along with the free of charge notice and time frame in which they should respond.

It has also come to my attention, that the signs when the CN was issued are different to what they are now, I have photographic evidence of both signs some were covered with bin bags and some not, they are now all suspended and not in force, however this place was a regular parking spot for some years the named drivers on my policy used before the signs were up and enforcement began! It has only been in force for 6-8 weeks max before it stopped again.

Franky2301

however with it being some 9 months ago the driver is unknown!

KeithP

Franky2301 wrote: »

however with it being some 9 months ago the driver is unknown!

But you said earlier:

Franky2301 wrote: »

The driver had pulled over to answer an important phone call, as soon as the hand brake was applied (engine still running) a warden came over to the car and ordered the driver to move, they advised they aren’t stopping and will move once the phone call had finished, this was about 1 min long! A few choice words were exchanged and the warden threatened to write a ticket so the driver stupidly called their bluff and told them to go ahead, they then wrote the date on a piece of yellow card with parking notice or something like that written on and threw it in the drivers face, thinking no more of it the driver discarded it.

That's a remarkably good recollection of the details of the event by someone who can't remember exactly who told him that.

Franky2301

I’m sure there’s many of stories people have told to you without you remembering exactly who said it, Ive had my car a long tom and it has seen many of drivers

Franky2301

Hi All,

Please could someone provide critique to the below defence

I am XXXXX, defendant in this matter.

1. This claim arises as the result of an alleged contravention brought about by the parking of a xxxxxxxxxxxx motor vehicle under registration number xxxx xxx that in turn resulted in the issue of Charge Notice (as mentioned in the particulars of the claim) by the Claimant.


2. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimants case.


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


4. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant XXXX was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle XXXX 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. Furthermore the lack of detail prevents my being able to respond in more detail.


5. The Claimant is a well-funded company with dedicated legal staff and is a serial litigator. I submit that his issuing Particulars of Claim is lacking in usable detail and that it does not disclose a clear cause of action. This is not only remiss but appears to indicate a Cut and Paste approach to the issuing of proceedings. Furthermore, I submit that this demonstrates a complete disregard to the dignity of the court and causes little concern for the Claimant's duties in supporting the court to achieve the overriding objectives.


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


7. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is and has been the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXXXX which is the subject of these proceedings.


8. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle to which the Claimant is put to strict proof.
8.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver.
8.2. Under General Data Protection Laws which were implemented on 25th May 2018 it Is the right to request information via a Subject Access Request which may include any photographs or letters of and to the defendant which contains any personal data. It is also the law that this must be provided to the requestee within 30 days, such information has not been received from the Claimant.
9. I therefore respectfully ask the court to strike out this claim.

10.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")
10.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
10.2.1. there was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
10.2.2. 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.

10.3. In such instance the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption may exist, the Defendant denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Furthermore, the Defendant also 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 currently makes no such provision. Alternatively, an amendment could have been made to section.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act states that the identification of drivers are only in strictly limited circumstances, for instance where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions certainly do not apply to this matter.


11. It is denied that the Claimant is the landowner of the property in question, and that they have any other right or proprietary interest in the land. No such demonstrable intention to occupy has been provided to support this claim.


12. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that they were at the time of the alleged event in possession of sufficient authority to issue parking charges (or a Charge Notice as mentioned in the particulars of this current claim) and institute proceedings in their own name and can demonstrate a clear chain of authority from the landowner.
12.1 It has also now been speculated that this parking enforcement was suspended a short time after this Charge Notice was applied, which is currently still suspended due to insufficient authority.
12.2 In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant has no case and invite the court to strike the matter out.


13. If the court is minded to accept that the Claimant has standing then I further submit that the signs on this particularly small piece of land at the time of the alleged event were insufficient to the driver, (and any other driver) in terms of their visability (especially when seated inside a motor vehicle or passing on main road) and wording to reasonably convey a contractual obligation. This did not in any way at the time comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee Accredited Operators Scheme a signatory to which the Claimant was at the relevant time.


16. I further submit that the complexity and density of the text on the Claimants signs that the most onerous term being the £100 parking charge notice is buried amongst a mass of small print and does not even begin to comply with Denning MR Red Hand Rule.
16.1. In the absence of any signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there cannot have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

17. 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, This appears to be an attempt at double recovery.


18. 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. In this instance 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 to be true.

Name
Signature
Date

Franky2301

Quick Question

If a postal NTK is issued only 7 days after the "contravention" date does this mean that it cannot be enforced as it is earlier than the 28 day limit for windscreen tickets?

Would appreciate a quick reply, looking to send the defence today/tomorrow after making some amendements Thank you in advance