We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Court Claim Received - PLEASE HELP
Comments
-
Hello all,
Fist of all, thanks for your response RedX. I apologise, i was in no way asking for a full defence to be available for me to copy and paste, just some sort of guidline to what legal language quotes i can use.
Anyways, i have now worked on my defence as follows; i will really appreciate it if you all can have a look and let me know if this is ok?
IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE
Claim Number: xxxxxxx
Between:
ES PARKING ENFORCEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)
-and-
xxxxxxxxx (Defendant)
_________
Defence
1) It is admitted that the defendant, xxxxxxxx, residing at xxxxxxxxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not driving and did not park the vehicle on the material date.
2) It is denied that any indemnity costs are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.
3) As per photographic evidence provided by the claimant, it is very apparent that the defendant was not the driver at the time of the incident.
4) It is confirmed that the defendant is still not in receipt of the first PCN as this has been communicated with and requested for this from the claimant so as to pass on liability to the driver.
5) It is confirmed that the first letter received from the claimant is of Final Demand dated 9th October 2018 which does not give the option to transfer liability.
6) It is confirmed that the defendant wrote a letter to the Claimant on 15th October 2018 informing them of no receipt of the first letter and request them to send a copy so that the initial charge can be paid by the driver who has accepted liability.
7) It is confirmed that the claimant has completely ignored any communication from the defendant.
8) It is confirmed that the defendant received a Letter before Claim from the claimants solicitors Gladstones dated 1st November 2018 and that the defendant has responded & appealed to this as per instructions provided on the letter. Evidence of this available in the form of an automated email confirmation.
9) It is confirmed that no response or decision has been received from this above stated appeal and instead a court claim has been issued dated 10th December 2018.
10) It is believed that the Claimant’s Solicitors have not complied with the relevant Pre-action Protocol specified in the Pre-action Conduct & Protocol document published by the Ministry of Justice. This will lead to a failure of Compliance where the claimant’s Solicitors have not provided sufficient information to enable the objectives in paragraph 3 of the pre-section conduct to be met; The claimant’s solicitors have not communicated with the defendant prior to court claim in order to reach a solution despite the Defendant’s several communication attempts with the Claimant and its solicitor Gladstones.
11) The Claimant claims no right to pursue the Defendant as the registered keeper under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, as the Defendant has provided the Claimant and its Solicitor Gladstones the information of the driver who was in possession of the vehicle at the time of incident. The Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity as the driver has been identified and communicated to the claimant.
12) The claimant has assumed that the Defendant was the driver at the time of Incident. PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, "There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort"(2015).
13) The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to have been the subject of an investigation by the SRA.
14) I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, no responses being received to the Defendants communication attempts, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair and highly time consuming for unrepresented consumers.
15) I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.
16) It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner and should be pursued with the driver at time of incident who has been Identified to the claimant.
17) The alleged debt as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.
18) It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court. The lack of diligence in this claim demonstrates admirably that at best a ‘copy and paste' is the closest a human, legally trained or not, came to the information transmitted from claimant to the Money Claims Online system. There are no real costs and POFA prevents claims exceeding the sum on the original parking notice.
19) It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.
20) In the pre court stage the Claimant’s solicitor refused to acknowledge any communication from the Defendant; as well as ignored the Defendants request asking for alternative dispute resolution via POPLA.
21) The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable, ignorant and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.
22) I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above.
23) I request the court to see that the Defendant has no motive not to pay the charges. The claimant and its solicitors Gladstones have completely ignored the Defendants communication informing them that they were not the driver and that the true driver has accepted to take the liability.
Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.0 -
shall I mention anything about a counter claim should it come to going to court?
Claiming your costs at a hearing is not something for any counter claim.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Hi,
Could someone please have a read through my draft defence and let me know if any editing / changes need to made?
I have to file this defence by tomorrow so any assistance in this will be appreciated.
Thanks for your time
IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE
Claim Number: xxxxxxx
Between:
ES PARKING ENFORCEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)
-and-
xxxxxxxxx (Defendant)
_________
Defence
1) It is admitted that the defendant, xxxxxxxx, residing at xxxxxxxxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not driving and did not park the vehicle on the material date.
2) It is denied that any indemnity costs are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.
3) As per photographic evidence provided by the claimant, it is very apparent that the defendant was not the driver at the time of the incident.
4) It is confirmed that the defendant is still not in receipt of the first PCN as this has been communicated with and requested for this from the claimant so as to pass on liability to the driver.
5) It is confirmed that the first letter received from the claimant is of Final Demand dated 9th October 2018 which does not give the option to transfer liability.
6) It is confirmed that the defendant wrote a letter to the Claimant on 15th October 2018 informing them of no receipt of the first letter and request them to send a copy so that the initial charge can be paid by the driver who has accepted liability.
7) It is confirmed that the claimant has completely ignored any communication from the defendant.
8) It is confirmed that the defendant received a Letter before Claim from the claimants solicitors Gladstones dated 1st November 2018 and that the defendant has responded & appealed to this as per instructions provided on the letter. Evidence of this available in the form of an automated email confirmation.
9) It is confirmed that no response or decision has been received from this above stated appeal and instead a court claim has been issued dated 10th December 2018.
10) It is believed that the Claimant’s Solicitors have not complied with the relevant Pre-action Protocol specified in the Pre-action Conduct & Protocol document published by the Ministry of Justice. This will lead to a failure of Compliance where the claimant’s Solicitors have not provided sufficient information to enable the objectives in paragraph 3 of the pre-section conduct to be met; The claimant’s solicitors have not communicated with the defendant prior to court claim in order to reach a solution despite the Defendant’s several communication attempts with the Claimant and its solicitor Gladstones.
11) The Claimant claims no right to pursue the Defendant as the registered keeper under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, as the Defendant has provided the Claimant and its Solicitor Gladstones the information of the driver who was in possession of the vehicle at the time of incident. The Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity as the driver has been identified and communicated to the claimant.
12) The claimant has assumed that the Defendant was the driver at the time of Incident. PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, "There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort"(2015).
13) The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to have been the subject of an investigation by the SRA.
14) I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, no responses being received to the Defendants communication attempts, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair and highly time consuming for unrepresented consumers.
15) I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.
16) It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner and should be pursued with the driver at time of incident who has been Identified to the claimant.
17) The alleged debt as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.
18) It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court. The lack of diligence in this claim demonstrates admirably that at best a ‘copy and paste' is the closest a human, legally trained or not, came to the information transmitted from claimant to the Money Claims Online system. There are no real costs and POFA prevents claims exceeding the sum on the original parking notice.
19) It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.
20) In the pre court stage the Claimant’s solicitor refused to acknowledge any communication from the Defendant; as well as ignored the Defendants request asking for alternative dispute resolution via POPLA.
21) The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable, ignorant and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.
22) I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above.
23) I request the court to see that the Defendant has no motive not to pay the charges. The claimant and its solicitors Gladstones have completely ignored the Defendants communication informing them that they were not the driver and that the true driver has accepted to take the liability.
Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.0 -
That defence is very long. Remove #13, #14 and #15 for starters.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Just as well, as they were in the first person as is para 22 & 23.Coupon-mad wrote: »That defence is very long. Remove #13, #14 and #15 for starters.0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »That defence is very long. Remove #13, #14 and #15 for starters.
Thank you, edited and removed. do you think this defence is strong and good enough to file?0 -
IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE
Claim Number: xxxxxxx
Between:
ES PARKING ENFORCEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)
-and-
xxxxxxxxx (Defendant)
_________
Defence
1) It is admitted that the defendant, xxxxxxxx, residing at xxxxxxxxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not driving and did not park the vehicle on the material date.
2) It is denied that any indemnity costs are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.
3) As per photographic evidence provided by the claimant, it is very apparent that the defendant was not the driver at the time of the incident.
4) It is confirmed that the defendant is still not in receipt of the first PCN as this has been communicated with and requested for this from the claimant so as to pass on liability to the driver.
5) It is confirmed that the first letter received from the claimant is of Final Demand dated 9th October 2018 which does not give the option to transfer liability.
6) It is confirmed that the defendant wrote a letter to the Claimant on 15th October 2018 informing them of no receipt of the first letter and request them to send a copy so that the initial charge can be paid by the driver who has accepted liability.
7) It is confirmed that the claimant has completely ignored any communication from the defendant.
8) It is confirmed that the defendant received a Letter before Claim from the claimants solicitors Gladstones dated 1st November 2018 and that the defendant has responded & appealed to this as per instructions provided on the letter. Evidence of this available in the form of an automated email confirmation.
9) It is confirmed that no response or decision has been received from this above stated appeal and instead a court claim has been issued dated 10th December 2018.
10) It is believed that the Claimant’s Solicitors have not complied with the relevant Pre-action Protocol specified in the Pre-action Conduct & Protocol document published by the Ministry of Justice. This will lead to a failure of Compliance where the claimant’s Solicitors have not provided sufficient information to enable the objectives in paragraph 3 of the pre-section conduct to be met; The claimant’s solicitors have not communicated with the defendant prior to court claim in order to reach a solution despite the Defendant’s several communication attempts with the Claimant and its solicitor Gladstones.
11) The Claimant claims no right to pursue the Defendant as the registered keeper under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, as the Defendant has provided the Claimant and its Solicitor Gladstones the information of the driver who was in possession of the vehicle at the time of incident. The Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity as the driver has been identified and communicated to the claimant.
12) The claimant has assumed that the Defendant was the driver at the time of Incident. PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, "There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort"(2015).
13) It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner and should be pursued with the driver at time of incident who has been Identified to the claimant.
14) The alleged debt as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.
15) It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court. The lack of diligence in this claim demonstrates admirably that at best a ‘copy and paste' is the closest a human, legally trained or not, came to the information transmitted from claimant to the Money Claims Online system. There are no real costs and POFA prevents claims exceeding the sum on the original parking notice.
16) It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.
17) In the pre court stage the Claimant’s solicitor refused to acknowledge any communication from the Defendant; as well as ignored the Defendants request asking for alternative dispute resolution via POPLA.
18) The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable, ignorant and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.
19) The Defendant requests the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above.
20) The Defendant requests the court to see that the she has no motive not to pay the charges. The claimant and its solicitors Gladstones have completely ignored the Defendants communication informing them that they were not the driver and that the true driver has accepted to take the liability.
Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.0 -
Remove this, name & address not needed here:, xxxxxxxx, residing at xxxxxxxxx
And change your current #15 and #16 to this, amending the £sum of course:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75304578#Comment_75304578PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards