What to do

waamo

Very, very few companies post on here. Adapt one that has been done by an individual. The principle will be the same.

Luce2120

Just a quick question.

Looking at the SAR response from the Parking Company, their threats stated that if we do not pay within 14 Days then,

'the matter will be passed to either The TNC Debt recovery Group or Gladstone's Solicitors'.

We have had no correspondence from either of these companies, only a company called BW Legal.

Would it be fair to suggest that my company (having seen no evidence of the original offence) were unsure of the legitimacy of BW Legals claims.

Quentin

Sounds far fetched

But if it's true no harm using it

But not much of a defence!

And you have left this so late don't be expecting too much in the way of proof reading!

Luce2120

Any thoughts on this please

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxx

BETWEEN:

ARMTRAC Security Services (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxx (Defendant)

Preliminary Matters.

(1). The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction
16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the
Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade
Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says
1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you
must supply us with written authority from the landowner sufficient to establish you
as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where
applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who can recover
parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement, and it need not
necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an
operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient
right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator
directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.

(2). The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as
there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed, the particulars
of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimants are
known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service
have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour
is roboclaims and as such it is against the public interest.

Defence Statement

The Defendant is Company name and it is admitted that the company is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons.

The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been
ascertained.
1. The Claimant did not identify the driver
2. Being a LTD Company it is impossible that the registered keeper could have been the driver of the vehicle
3. The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant
must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to
hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.
4. The Claimant's increasingly demanding letters failed to evidence any contravention or
clear/prominent signage. Further, the Notice to Keeper failed to give
the statutory warning to the registered keeper about the '28 day period' which is
mandatory wording as prescribed in paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the Claimant is unable to rely on the 'keeper
liability' provisions of the POFA.

5. The Particulars of the Claim fail to specify on what legal basis has the claim been brought against the Defendant, the assumption being that it was under ‘keeper liability’

6. Due to the sparseness of the Particulars of Claim it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, 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.

7. The Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and asks leave to amend the defence.

8. Armtrac Security Services are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim. (I) The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract. (ii) The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question (iii). The Claimant is put to 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.

9. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

10. No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.

11. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.

12. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.

13. Notwithstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable. The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal representative’s costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

14. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

15. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, Company name is keeping a note of wasted time and costs so far in dealing with this matter, with a view to claiming the loss to the company of at least half a day's work for myself or another employee/Director, and travel/parking costs and any other expenses for attending any hearing as witness for the Defendant.

16. 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.

The facts and information in this defence are true and the Defendant company is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all. The employee submitting this defence works for, and is authorised to submit this defence by, Company name.

Luce2120

Anyone? Please.

Umkomaas

Luce2120 wrote: »

Anyone? Please.

Sorry, did no one on the overnight shift get on to this for you? Appalling service.

You have mixed and matched frequently ' I', 'Company Name', and 'Defendant' in your draft. It should only ever be 'Defendant'.

I'm no expert on writing/critiquing defences, so my input more or less ends at this point.

As it's your company defending this, how far away is the company situated from Armtrac's base in Cornwall?

Coupon-mad

What's wrong with the company defence example linked in the NEWBIES thread (we never link them again on individual threads, no need).

Le_Kirk

On the face of it, it covers nearly all the usual bases, except signage. Without giving away the driver (especially if the company doesn't know) has anyone carried out any research about poor/inadequate/illegible signs since receiving the PCN and any other letters? The defence is always written in the third person. Don't say "I believe" but "put the claimant to strict proof" particularly in your point 8. I believe it has to be signed by a Director of the company.


I am sure there is a company defence in the NEWBIES post # 2 in amongst the 17 written by Bargepole, Coupon-mad et al.

Luce2120

Armtrac Security have a registered office in London. There is no information on their base in Cornwall I can find. Only a PO Box addressed about 50 miles away?


Is this relevant?

Luce2120

Thanks for your help though. Yes the company defence you are referring to I have studied. It is based on a company arguing they have permission to be there for loading/unloading purposes. This is not the case for us so their argument would not fit.

In all honesty I have no idea why our vehicle was there and why our employee parked there, I just am not willing to accept that I should be out of pocket because of someone else's actions who I can not even identify.