Help! Have followed advice so far...but worried

Lotuslady

Thanks Ralph-y,

It’s one of those magnetic attach keyboards via Bluetooth so tried UK setting, and since your advice have located the # symbol! I need to press the Alt and Option key (1 key) with the 3 key to bring it up.. which your reply gave me the chill factor to try a few other things on the keyboard.. so thankyou!

Lotuslady

Thanks for that Beamerguy, a great help to me.. I can start preparing things now in a more calm state now my stressy period is hopefully coming to an end!

Lotuslady

Thanks soo much Redx for putting that in plain speak, the # explanation is a godsend so to speak as in my stressed state hadn’t even noticed that side of the page.. Feeling a lot calmer about it now..
Thanks again!

Lotuslady

Hi there Redx,

Have submitted my AOS online..

Re submitting the SAR to the DPO @ the PPC using the claim form as ID (I this previously but didn’t get a reply.. only ID request which I sent back at the time..) Do I need to also request Gladstones to put my case on hold again? (They refused to last time..) It’s just am wondering if the SAR will come back in time, and what to do if it doesn’t... sorry if I’m thinking too far ahead..

Thanks again

Coupon-mad

You can't ask them to put a case on hold when it's your time to defend a claim.

No-one gets the SAR on time. Read some other threads, who cares about the SAR at this stage?!

Redx

so

AOS done - tick

SAR done - tick

get on with drafting your DEFENCE

Lotuslady

Ok Thanks Coupon Mad,

Am on the case now, thanks for clearing that up.. some of this legal process takes a lot to get your head around!

Lotuslady

Thanks Redx,

Am on the case, hopefully my eyes will not turn square wiith all this computer reading!

Lotuslady

Ok here goes, think I’ve covered it all...

Be most grateful if you legal experts could give it your perusal and advise me of any changes or additional points I may need to add.. and Happy Christmas to you all... I now agree these are quite despicable PPC’s dishing out this sort of thing at this time of year..

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It appears that the Claim relates to a purported debt as the result of a a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXX when it was parked at XXXX

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay in the alleged car park referred to as XXXX by the Claimant.

3. 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. They merely state that vehicles must not be parked outside of a designated area/parking bay and if unsure to please contact CPM for which a premium rate telephone number of 0845 463 5050 is given which is in contravention of the BPA code of Practice (18.6) which states “If you provide a telephone line to respond to complaints, challenges and appeals from motorists relating to the terms and conditions of parking they have entered into, these calls must not be charged above the basic rate.”

4. 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.

5. Paragraph 21.1 of the BPA code of practice advises operators that they may use APNR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable , consistent and transparent manner. The code of practice requires that the car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by APNR cameras for. This information is not at all mentioned on the Claimant’s signage and the Claimant is therefore in breach of the Code of Practice.

6. No street lighting covers the car park or the signage at the entrance, and no additional lighting has been installed to aid drivers in seeing theses signs.
It is therefore again denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating any legally binding contract whatsoever.

7. 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.

The signage makes no mention of the Claimant’s authority to manage the alleged car park, to issue tickets or to pursue charges to court in their own name

8. The amount claimed by the Claimant is an unconscionable amount and an abuse of process. 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 plus interest, for which no calculation or explanation is given other than it being “contractual costs” and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. The amount is also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, schedule 2 “terms that may be unfair”.

In a very recent case, District Judge Taylor, dismissed a case from the Claimant that included a false amount of £60 due to abuse of process.
Claim number is F0DP201T District Judge Taylor
Southampton Court, 10th June 2019.

Additionally, District Judge Grand has recently concluded that an additional sum such as the Claimant is seeking to recover is knowingly inflated and and the Claimant is not entitled to recover it (F0DP163T, Southampton Court, 11th July 2019)

In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant’s position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.


9. The Claimant has not followed properly laid down guidelines drawn up to protect consumers regarding the appeal of Penalty Charge Notices issued. The BPA Code of Conduct 22.7 states “We consider it a reasonable timescale to allow 28 days from the issue of the PCN (in whatever format) to allow the driver/keeper to appeal the enforcement action. The Claimant rejected the defendants appeal to them even though it was within the recommended timescale.

10. The Defendant was suffering with PTSD at the time that the Penalty Charge Notice was received and during the lead up to the Claim Form N1SDT being issued by the Claimant. The Notice To Keeper sent by the claimant contained very confusing wording as to the timescales regarding appeal of the Penalty Charge Notice which could easily have been misunderstood. As a result this claim has been exceedingly vexatious from the very outset, having a detrimental effect on the defendant’s mental, emotional and physical wellbeing and overall health. Especially as further “Demand for outstanding Payment” letters were received in the interim.

In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant’s position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused, regardless of wether a Defendant is suffering from a mental health condition or not.

The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.


9. 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 Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Many Thanks in advance.. Miss Not so square eyed today at least..!

PS Wondering about parts 9 and 10 above as Appeal Terms on rereading several times say 21 days to appeal... very unclear that this is the case due to the wording around it and on the front of the NTK... I appealed within 28 day period (as within BPA Code ) and was emailed “it was outside of the required 21 day period”

. Didn’t appeal to IAS after this as head going to explode at this point.. and think have since read somewhere that they are not “independent” am sure I read there was a possible conflict of interest with 2 of their members/persons in charge being also part of a PPC?? Is it worth adding this? (that is if anyone can help point me in the direction of this evidence so I could use it as a possible defence if needed..)

Redx

renumber all paragraphs , plus some numbers are duplicated