Brittania PPC Newbie post

KeithP

Taliessa wrote: »

The court claim issue date is 3rd June. Claim has been acknowledged.
Is it correct that I have 33 days from issue to submit my defence?
Which would make the deadline 6th July?

As 6th July is a Saturday, you have until 4pm on the next working day to file your Defence.

With a Claim Issue Date of 3rd June, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 8th July 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over two weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.


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 "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Taliessa

Oh my goodness THANKYOU so much for your help.

Coupon-mad

That link by beamerguy includes a post I made with a standard defence ending, that is pretty long but I don't care, the costs need robustly attacking so more people see these claims (hopefully) struck out, or the costs removed.

Taliessa

Here is my defence, is this ok?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Claimant)
-and-
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)


Defence

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 XXXXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a parking area that the driver has frequented freely and without restriction for over thirty years as a regular customer and local driver and was on this date in question a genuine user of an establishment that the parking area serves.
3. The Claimant is in breach of paragraph 18.11 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice which states that ‘where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you should make these clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you should consider a grace period to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional/temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the new ones." No such additional or temporary signage was in place.
4. The car park in question has had no stay restrictions whatsoever for over 30 years, yet not only was the signage made not prominent enough there is no grace period offered either or any exceptions made for local and regular users of the site in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice paragraph 18.11.
6. The entrance sign to the site is positioned in such a way that it is not in the driver's line of vision.
7. The signage at the site is all on one side of the parking area only and there are no marked parking bays.
8. The signage is not illuminated and cannot be seen during hours of darkness.
9. It is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner. 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.
10. The Particulars of the Claim fail to specify on what legal basis the claim been brought against the Defendant, the assumption being that it was under ‘keeper liability’.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. The Claimant is also in breach of paragraph 20.14 of British Parking Association Code of Practice which specifies that ‘when serving a Notice to Keeper, you must also include information telling the keeper the 'reasonable cause' you had for asking the DVLA for their details'. No such information was included in the NTK received by the Defendant.
14. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietory interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
15. 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.
16. In a very recent case, District Judge Taylor, dismissed a case from BWLegal that included this same false amount of £60. This claim was struck out as an 'abuse of process' Claim number is F0DP201T Southampton Court, 10th June 2019.
17. 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, as was the case in Southampton Court, 10th June 2019, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

How are people missing my post with the FULL wording, on that thread?

Coupon-mad wrote: »

That link by beamerguy includes a post I made with a standard defence ending, that is pretty long but I don't care, the costs need robustly attacking so more people see these claims (hopefully) struck out, or the costs removed.

Taliessa

Hi Coupon-mad and thankyou, I did see the post with the full wording and I read it all. But then someone replied on your thread with
"This advice is very unwise. Any judge seeing all that stuff will realise that this a bog standard defence taken from a website and won't even read it. By all means refer to the Southampton case but do so briefly." - so this made me think I should condense it? Who is correct here? (I guess each is just opinion) but if you think I should include the entire post on my defence then I will. Totally new to the court system and could never of done this without you guys, I am highly appreciative of all the help here but was taking on board all the advice from you experts here.

beamerguy

Taliessa ..... dealing with a judge is no different to dealing with anyone else. You have a point to make and highlighting a scam to the judge is the start.

As far as copy and paste and forum templates etc, what do think these dodgy legals do ....... they have a standard template which they tweak .... the judge still reads them even though he/she has seen them hundreds of times

Your job is to alert the Judge and hopefully the rest will be insignificant.

The post you refer to "This is very unwise" was posted by legal magpie

The posts that followed disagreed and you should take notice of the regulars of this forum, not someone who pops in and out

Le_Kirk

"This advice is very unwise. Any judge seeing all that stuff will realise that this a bog standard defence taken from a website and won't even read it.

Just because it is a bog standard defence from a web site doesn't make it wrong! Those defence points were added by experienced long-time forumites whereas the comment was from a poster of limited postings - if I remember correctly. (Not wishing to put down that poster, everyone is entitled to a point of view.) I would hope that judges read everything about a case otherwise how are they able to .... er ... well, judge

Taliessa

'and you should take notice of the regulars of this forum, not someone who pops in and out'
'Those defence points were added by experienced long-time forumites'

Ok, thankyou for this, I will re-draft adding Coupon-Mad's full defence regarding the scam £60 and the Southampton case. Is everything else ok with the draft defence?

Le_Kirk

Defence is OK except you need ALL of the points about the court cases in Southampton and IOW. If you search for Abuse of Process posted by beamerguy, you will see, if you scroll through it, the defence points written by Coupon-mad and it is quite long but it all should be there. In fact most defences written today have been pointed to it and should now contain it.