What to do

Quentin

Side issue, but your company ought to know who exactly is driving their vehicles at any time - more essential for proper offences caught on camera than scam parking invoices!

beamerguy

Luce2120 wrote: »

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.

Are you saying that you don't know what's going on with your company or employees ???

Luce2120

Point taken but none of this is relevant.....surely?

Quentin

I did say it was a side issue - though one that you brought up!

Umkomaas

Luce2120 wrote: »

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?

Very much so, otherwise why would I have asked it? I don't ask random irrelevant questions. All questions I ask are designed to help you in one way or another.

A small claim hearing against an individual will be held in the individual's nearest county court, where one against a company will be held in the county court nearest to the claimant. So in this case, whether it is London or Cornwall (or wherever), it's very likely to be a bit more inconvenient than if Armtrac were pursuing an individual.

While I'm at it, you need to read up on CPS v AJH Films, as they might well press on that basis too.

It's case C046 in the following link:

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

Quentin

Luce2120 wrote: »

Point taken but none of this is relevant.....surely?

Nobody here has time to waste yours with irrelevance,!!

Luce2120

Umkomass. I was not intending to suggest you question had no relevance. Merely questioning what the relevance was. I am not sure I fully understand. So you are suggesting that I may be summoned to a London court causing inconvenience to me more than Armtrac?

Luce2120

The case you highlighted is interesting and fits my situation. I am finding it hard to understand the way it is worded. Is this judge in favour of the Claimant?

Umkomaas

So you are suggesting that I may be summoned to a London court causing inconvenience to me more than Armtrac?

What I am saying is that Armtrac will have much more say in where the case is heard than your company will (provided Armtrac are aware of their advantage in this regard).

Is this judge in favour of the Claimant?

Yes, and why PPCs will use the judgment wherever they can to assist their case. You need to be aware of it and be able to put up a counter argument should it come your way. You won't know if Armtrac will use it until they produce their Witness Statement, further down the line.

Luce2120

This is my latest defence revision.

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.

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’. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

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 Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. The terms on the Claimant's signage are extremely faded, illegible and displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle. It 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.

8 The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary 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. (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 is a company director, works for, and is authorised to submit this defence by, Company name.

Name, Signature, Date.