Small Claims Count NI

maximilian72

Hi guys, I have a few questions about small claims court letter I got.
Sorry in advance because I'm dyslexic and even more illiterate when it comes to stuff like this.

So I was under the impress that private parking charge notices could be ignored in NI and I arrogantly gathered 6 between march and may this year (I know, I know). I was the driver but the car is registered in my mothers name.

The first letters came from 'TNC Group', there were 6 separate letters demanding £170 each; I ignored these. Then a month later a single letter from 'CPS' arrived demanding £540 (£90 each) or else they would proceed to Small Claims Court and I then went to their web-site / payment service (carparkservices.ec6pay.com). This site returned are error when I entered any of the 6 parking notice numbers and car registration, saying that the details were unobtainable. So because I wasn't able to see any photos or anything I presumed the site wasn't legit.

And last Friday we got a letter and 'respondent information pack' from the Courts and Tribunals Service for a claim of £623.

So my questions are:
Do they even have photos?
Should I write about this in my Notice of dispute?
Should I consult a solicitor?

I'm sure these questions have been asked but any help is very much appreciated because reading really long threads is difficult for me...

Thanks

Redx

we dont see court claims in NI but if there are multiple pcn,s then they may well make a court claim which is why you probably received one

there is no KEEPER liability in NI, so as long as you do not blab about who was driving you may well win in court. this was why the notices were ignored

send the PPC an SAR under the GDPR in order to get all the info and evidence you require , including any photos

we have little or no experience of NI court claims so very few people (if any) can advise you


ps:- YOU have not received any letters, they have all gone to your mum, so this has nothing to do with you as such, YOU are helping YOUR MUM (hope you understand this as its very important - you cannot do this for her, but you can assist her)

Umkomaas

Who exactly are the parking company? CPS? Please give exact name and address for them.

So my questions are:
Do they even have photos?

You need to think through the questions you are asking the forum.

Coupon-mad

You need to read the other thread we have about a claim in NI:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5887924/small-claims-court-letter-n-ireland

The OP there says he has had a hearing and:

Adjourned - The PPC's legal people have to explain why they can pursue me under the rule of agency...something along those lines.

Their company representatives were in court, not solicitors. Had 3 in Court including me, 2 settled...seems I'm the first to dispute in front of a (very nice and a very fair) judge. The specifics of the case are messy to say the least.

The judge was surprised (as was I) that they didn't have solicitors in Court.

Think they were expecting me to bend over and admit liability for something there is no proof of.

The law of agency thing came via telephone advice from a solicitor etc.

And Castle pointed out:

Castle wrote: »

Launchbury v Morgans from the House of Lords in 1972 would still be binding on Northern Ireland courts.

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1972/5.html

You will need to understand why the law of agency cannot make a keeper liable for the driver's actions, in a normal individual (non company) relationship. As explained briefly by IamEmanresu:

60. In any event, vicarious liability cannot be fixed in this instance. The Defendant draws the Court’s attention to Launchbury v Morgans [1972] UKHL 5:

“For I regard it as clear that in order to fix vicarious liability upon the owner of a car in such a case as the present, it must be shown that the driver was using it for the owner's purposes, under delegation of a task or duty”

So the issues are narrow down to them proving this ... or just using the court to bully people. If you can, get lots of costs out of them.

Judges have memories so this may be a legal "smash and grab" and you are an early victim. So the more you can queer their pitch, the better.

Remember that your MOTHER is the Respondent and there is nothing in law that compels her to name the driver. And she should not, because she can't be held liable unless the Scumbag PPC get the 'law of agency' argument to swerve the sense of the Judge.

Do not do any forms in your name. All in your Mum's name if she is the named Respondent.

twhitehousescat

Umkomaas wrote: »

Who exactly are the parking company? CPS? Please give exact name and address for them.


You need to think through the questions you are asking the forum.

HandyPark is a trading name for Car Park Services Limited, registered in Northern Ireland, registration number NI019831. Car Park Services have been operating since 1986, providing car parking solutions for clients in the public sector and the private sector, we also manage our own car parks.

maximilian72

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You need to read the other thread we have about a claim in NI:

I haven't seen this thread yet, thank you.

Another novice question: if I [meaning my mum] dispute the claim, will there definitely be a court hearing, or is it possible have it thrown out in the 2000 words I [mother] am [is] allowed?

Coupon-mad

She is surely not just allowed 2000 words. Presumably a defence can be mailed or emailed, like we do here for the English courts where we NEVER squeeze a defence into a 2000 character box.

Why not send the OP of the other thread, a pm for tips & support? He managed it and is ahead of your Mum in this game.

Going by that thread, there will be a hearing. She has nothing to fear. Be proud to be the first few to defend these scams in NI and to alert the Judges to the issues of Respondents who were not driving.

That's why you and she, need to use and understand how Launchbury v Morgans [1972] UKHL 5 kills their scam argument about the law of agency (i.e. the driver was not her, and neither will the driver be named because there is no such provision in law for parking firms on private land - and quite right too - but that the driver was not acting as her 'agent'!).