8 county court letters & may have further coming against me. Help me

twhitehousescat

yes , you need to do MORE than reach out

was it them that hired the parking Co?

us the land JUST for you or is it shared ?

waamo

vapey2016 wrote: »

I have checked the lease and it states the following:

“The right to park one private motor car in the parking space shown edged red on plan 2 annexed hereto.”

The landowner is Opecprime properties limited as far as I have read and own the building and the car park behind.

Would it be worth reaching out to the landowner as I am there tenant?

Regardless of what they say you are going to court. You don't seem to grasping that your father is a defendant too and this needs defending.

As advised read the Newbies thread.

vapey2016

Hi guys, I appreciate the help and have spent the past few days putting together a defence using the newbies thread.Here it is:

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 XXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to Company XXXXX at XXXXXX Woolwich and had a valid permit to be parked in that bay.
3) The Defendant has a right to park in XXXXXWoolwich car park as they are a tenant to a lease of a commercial property (XXXXX). It is stated in the defendant’s lease “The right to park one private motor car in the parking space shown edged red on plan 2 annexed hereto.” The defendant was also provided with a Fob key in order to open the 2 automatic gates at the front of the top and bottom floor car parks. The only way a vehicle can enter the car park would be through the use of the Fob key as the gates can not be manually opened. Being able to enter the car park should be more then a clear indication to the ticket officer enforcing the ‘parking charge notices’ (PCN) that the vehicle has a right to park in the bay.
4) The defendant obtained the lease of the commercial property in April 2014 and started using their parking space in December 2014 till December 2017. The defendant has used their parking bay for 3 years on average of 5 days a week and has made sure to have their parking permit on display to show their right to park.
5) The Claim Form issued on the 22 November 2018 by SECURE-A-SPACE LIMITED was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person. The claim does not have a valid signature and is not a statement of truth. It states that it has been issued by SECURE-A-SPACE LIMITED but has been signed by the Claimants Legal Representative which are BW Legal Services Limited. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by a person holding a senior position and state the position. If the party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth but in his own name and not that of his firm or employer.
6) Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the PCN was initially issued, 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. This concludes the PCN is incorrect and should not have initially stood.
7) The particulars fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction 16, paragraphs 7.3 – 7.5 by failing to provide a copy of the contract or details of any agreement by conduct that the PCN was issued for.
8) The claim arises from the Claimant issuing an invoice or ‘Parking Charge Notice’ for £100 to the Defendant’s vehicle XXXX on xx/xx/2017. The defendant has from the outset denied any liability in respect of the claim and has repeatedly requested that the Claimant provide evidence of any legal basis to their claim which the Claimant has to date failed to do.
9) The Claimant is attempting to claim additional charges such as legal costs of £50.00. The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have been incurred. Furthermore, legal costs cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court and should be struck out as unrecoverable.
10) 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, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
11) Given the fact that BW Legal boasted in Bagri v BW Legal Ltd of processing 'millions' of claims with an admin team (and only a handful of solicitors), the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste PPS robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities.
12) The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. However, with no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant is fully aware that their claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim, where there was no breach, no right to issue a PCN as a valid parking permit was displayed and the defendant has a right to park.
13) The Claimant has, since July 2017, subjected the Defendant to a barrage of letters, demanding ever increasing sums of money but refused to respond to reasonable requests to provide the evidence necessary to support their claims. These letters have often misrepresented the legal process, in attempts to threaten and intimidate the Defendant into paying the amount demanded. The Claimant is a serial litigator and the issuing of this Claim without any legal basis appears to be another attempt to intimidate the Defendant, who does not have the legal expertise of the Claimant, into paying an unsubstantiated charge.
14) Furthermore the Claimant has submitted four separate county court claims against the defendant for different “parking charge notices”. This shows how the claimant has continued to put more pressure on the defendant into submission for payment. Claim number xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
15) The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not been complied with. The keeper can only be held liable if the claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements. The Claimant has not established whether the Defendant was the driver on the day in question and have not clarified whether they are pursuing the Defendant as Keeper or as Driver.
16) In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent, in this case xxxxx Properties Limited. No evidence of such authority was supplied by the Claimant at any time, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant.
17) If the court is minded accepting that the Claimant has standing, then I submit that the signage at the site at the time and date of the alleged event was insufficient to reasonably convey a contractual obligation and also did not comply with the requirements of the IPC Code of Practice. The signage was inadequate in terms of the following:
• Lack of illumination of signage (and the car park), poor visibility
• Lack of clarity and prominence of terms and conditions
• Large numbers of confusing and conflicting signs, including signs from other parties (Parking solutions), such that it was not clear which signs had precedence
• Inadequate positioning of signs, at unsuitable heights and have the possibility of being blocked with bin lids.
• Damaged and broken sign with majority of the board missing.
• No signage at all on the top floor of the car park
18) The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle 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.
19) Thus, the signage is simply a device to entrap motorists into a situation whereby the Claimant sends them invoices for unwarranted and unjustified charges, for which motorists can have no contractual liability due to the terms and conditions not having been sufficiently brought to their attention. This activity is bordering on, if not actually crossing the boundary of, a criminal offence of Fraud By False Representation.
20) The Claimant is put to strict proof of all his assertions
21) 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 Defense are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Umkomaas

Nice wall of text awaiting anyone seeking a full-on migraine!

@OP - you seem not to have one of those paragraph buttons on the keyboard you are using. Is it still under guarantee?

Pirate_Parker

vapey2016 wrote: »

Hi guys, I appreciate the help and have spent the past few days putting together a defence using the newbies thread.Here it is:

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 XXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to Company XXXXX at XXXXXX Woolwich and had a valid permit to be parked in that bay.

3) The Defendant has a right to park in XXXXXWoolwich car park as they are a tenant to a lease of a commercial property (XXXXX). It is stated in the defendant’s lease “The right to park one private motor car in the parking space shown edged red on plan 2 annexed hereto.” The defendant was also provided with a Fob key in order to open the 2 automatic gates at the front of the top and bottom floor car parks. The only way a vehicle can enter the car park would be through the use of the Fob key as the gates can not be manually opened. Being able to enter the car park should be more then a clear indication to the ticket officer enforcing the ‘parking charge notices’ (PCN) that the vehicle has a right to park in the bay.

4) The defendant obtained the lease of the commercial property in April 2014 and started using their parking space in December 2014 till December 2017. The defendant has used their parking bay for 3 years on average of 5 days a week and has made sure to have their parking permit on display to show their right to park.

5) The Claim Form issued on the 22 November 2018 by SECURE-A-SPACE LIMITED was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person. The claim does not have a valid signature and is not a statement of truth. It states that it has been issued by SECURE-A-SPACE LIMITED but has been signed by the Claimants Legal Representative which are BW Legal Services Limited. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by a person holding a senior position and state the position. If the party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth but in his own name and not that of his firm or employer.

6) Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the PCN was initially issued, 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. This concludes the PCN is incorrect and should not have initially stood.

7) The particulars fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction 16, paragraphs 7.3 – 7.5 by failing to provide a copy of the contract or details of any agreement by conduct that the PCN was issued for.

8) The claim arises from the Claimant issuing an invoice or ‘Parking Charge Notice’ for £100 to the Defendant’s vehicle XXXX on xx/xx/2017. The defendant has from the outset denied any liability in respect of the claim and has repeatedly requested that the Claimant provide evidence of any legal basis to their claim which the Claimant has to date failed to do.

9) The Claimant is attempting to claim additional charges such as legal costs of £50.00. The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have been incurred. Furthermore, legal costs cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court and should be struck out as unrecoverable.

10) 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, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

11) Given the fact that BW Legal boasted in Bagri v BW Legal Ltd of processing 'millions' of claims with an admin team (and only a handful of solicitors), the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste PPS robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities.

12) The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. However, with no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant is fully aware that their claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim, where there was no breach, no right to issue a PCN as a valid parking permit was displayed and the defendant has a right to park.

13) The Claimant has, since July 2017, subjected the Defendant to a barrage of letters, demanding ever increasing sums of money but refused to respond to reasonable requests to provide the evidence necessary to support their claims. These letters have often misrepresented the legal process, in attempts to threaten and intimidate the Defendant into paying the amount demanded. The Claimant is a serial litigator and the issuing of this Claim without any legal basis appears to be another attempt to intimidate the Defendant, who does not have the legal expertise of the Claimant, into paying an unsubstantiated charge.

14) Furthermore the Claimant has submitted four separate county court claims against the defendant for different “parking charge notices”. This shows how the claimant has continued to put more pressure on the defendant into submission for payment. Claim number xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

15) The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not been complied with. The keeper can only be held liable if the claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements. The Claimant has not established whether the Defendant was the driver on the day in question and have not clarified whether they are pursuing the Defendant as Keeper or as Driver.

16) In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent, in this case xxxxx Properties Limited. No evidence of such authority was supplied by the Claimant at any time, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant.

17) If the court is minded accepting that the Claimant has standing, then I submit that the signage at the site at the time and date of the alleged event was insufficient to reasonably convey a contractual obligation and also did not comply with the requirements of the IPC Code of Practice. The signage was inadequate in terms of the following:
• Lack of illumination of signage (and the car park), poor visibility
• Lack of clarity and prominence of terms and conditions
• Large numbers of confusing and conflicting signs, including signs from other parties (Parking solutions), such that it was not clear which signs had precedence
• Inadequate positioning of signs, at unsuitable heights and have the possibility of being blocked with bin lids.
• Damaged and broken sign with majority of the board missing.
• No signage at all on the top floor of the car park

18) The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle 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.

19) Thus, the signage is simply a device to entrap motorists into a situation whereby the Claimant sends them invoices for unwarranted and unjustified charges, for which motorists can have no contractual liability due to the terms and conditions not having been sufficiently brought to their attention. This activity is bordering on, if not actually crossing the boundary of, a criminal offence of Fraud By False Representation.

20) The Claimant is put to strict proof of all his assertions

21) 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 Defense are true.

Name
Signature
Date

De-wallified the text for the OP. My enter key is still protected by warranty.

vapey2016

Hi can someone please advice me if my defence is okay? Thank you