The County Court

plytek

Hello everyone

English is not my first language, so please excuse any mistakes.

I have received PCN from UK CPM dated 20th of November 2017 asking for charge of £100 (£60 if paid within 14 days) for "Not Displaying a Valid Permit" on private land. As per newbies thread 9th of December I have send them a letter found on forum. I did not get reply to my questions.
In March and April 2018 I have received letters from Debt Recovery Plus which I have ignored. Amount rose to £160.
Then in May received letter from Gladstones solicitors asking for £160 again.
In October I have received Letter Before Claim from them, but somehow I have totally forgotten about it and didn't sent SAR listing.
12th of November I have received Claim Form from County Court Business Centre dated 8th of Nov. 20th of November I have submitted acknowledgment of service on MCOL website.

I know now I have to write defence, but I don't have SAR. Is it too late for it?

Thanks in advance

Redx

you can still do the SAR to their DPO, but it may not get a reply in time for a full defence , so base your defence on the concise BARGEPOLE defences and just add the facts to it asap


KeithP will tell you your deadline date (probably)

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 8th November, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 11th December 2018 to file your Defence.

That's nearly a week. Not long at all, so press on.


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 [URL="https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread[/URL] to find out exactly what to do with it.

plytek

Will write defence asap and post it here for checking.

plytek

Parking Charge Notice wasn't attached to windscreen, just been sent to registered keeper. Car was parked on private road in the place where no parking bays are marked, no yellow or red lines.

Please find scanned PCN there: hxxps://i.postimg.cc/D0S0M4Fp/pcn-ukcpm.jpg

Have done concise defence. Will that be enough?






In The County Court

Claim No: XXXXXXX

Between

UKCPS Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper 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 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")

3. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

4. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection 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.

5. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

KeithP

You need to mention something about the alleged transgression.

plytek

Sorry, not sure what I should add.
Are you able to write it for me please?

KeithP

Have you seen the example Defences linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread?

Paragraph 2 in both the Bargepole concise Defences is what you are missing.

Coupon-mad

Your first post says it's UKCPM but your defence says UKCPS (two different companies).

for "Not Displaying a Valid Permit" on private land.

So you need to explain why the driver was not displaying a permit, either because they were only there for a few minutes loading/unloading, or dropping off or picking up a passenger? Or because the signs were so sparsely placed that you had no idea the car park was managed, or about any contract.

plytek

My fault. Yes, should be UKCPM. Car was parked at the entrance to car park for few minutes only. There is a sign "Private land, No Unauthorised Parking, See notices in car park for conditions".
There is no sign with theirs T&C in place where car was parked. Its few meters behind it.
Can I state driver was just picking up a passenger? Is it a good excuse? Can that be defended?

Coupon-mad

Can I state driver was just picking up a passenger? Is it a good excuse? Can that be defended?

Yes, if that is true.

You can also say that the sign makes no offer to non-permit holders. a contractual agreement requires an offer of something of value to the consumer.

UKCPM were only offering parking to 'authorised' drivers who had a permit. That sign forbids parking by non-authorised drivers.

To understand what I mean, read the Judge's words in Pace v Lengyel, here:

http://www.parking-prankster.com/more-case-law.html

Hope that makes sense - read Pace v Lengyel.