Parking "fine" - court letter

Coupon-mad

unless requesting solicitor fees is not allowed?

It's not allowed unless it was actually paid for legal advice/action. You'd be surprised, don't assume it has been.

And the principal debt can't add sixty quid that wasn't paid to anyone either.

KeithP

Please re-read the second part of post #30.

You need to edit post #29 accordingly.

sellwin90

KeithP wrote: »

Please re-read the second part of post #30.

You need to edit post #29 accordingly.

Done I think

sellwin90

Couple of questions.

From one of the links above, should this be my closing statement: "For the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss this Claim in its entirety, and to award the Defendant such witness costs for attendance at trial as are permissible pursuant to CPR 27.14."

Should I remove that the driver left within the grace period offered at the end of the ticket, because of the good Samaritan bit within my defence (I appreciate that we said this can be removed later if no SAR is received in time, but I think it unlikely that the driver left within the grace period). OR should the good Samaritan bit just be left out altogether

And how do you find out about the authority of the land. It's off of the main road, in a car park, so is this enough "proof" for them to claim it's private land. I only ask as I found this on a separate website and a car park to me seems like it comes under "part b":
The car park was on “relevant land”. Relevant land is defined as private land and specifically excludes the following land:
(a) a public highway
(b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority
(c) any other land where parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control (such as airports and railway stations which are covered by byelaws).

I will post an updated version tomorrow

Coupon-mad

Should I remove that the driver left within the grace period offered at the end of the ticket, because of the good Samaritan bit within my defence (I appreciate that we said this can be removed later if no SAR is received in time, but I think it unlikely that the driver left within the grace period). OR should the good Samaritan bit just be left out altogether

I think these facts, if known once you get more info, can wait until Witness Statement stage. No need for this level of 'what happened' commentary in the defence.

To find out who owns private land, ask the local authority who pays the non-domestic rates for that site. Should be public information the Council can supply.

If not, try Land Registry for £3.50 or so.

sellwin90

Will get onto the local authority tomorrow. In the meantime, here's my latest defence with the good samaritan bit left out for the time being..

CLAIM No: xxxxx

BETWEEN:

BRITANNIA PARKING (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxx (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 xxxxxx, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to Company BRITANNIA PARKING at Lambhay Car Park, Plymouth, and had a valid ticket to be parked in that bay.

3. To the best of the drivers knowledge, they fully complied with the car park rules by entering the vehicle registration number and purchasing a ticket within the initial grace period allowed by the British Parking Assoication’s (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP) and left within the minimum 10 minutes grace period allowed by the BPA CoP at the end of the parking period.

4. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. 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.

5. 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. The POC is inadequate as it does not provide any hint as to what rule the driver is alleged to have breached. It is denied that the Defendant, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct, however any driver of the vehicle did, as a ticket was purchased.

6. 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.

7. The lighting surrounding multiple signs in the Claimant’s car park is insufficient. The lighting over the tariffs board is intermittent and flickers. In addition to this, the outer box which highlights the tariffs provides a shadow underneath making it even more difficult to read the particulars when the light is in it’s “on” stage of the flickering. This is not confirming to the British Parking Associations, Code of Practice, nor the rules that were issued after the outcome of the “ParkingEye V Barry Beavis” case.

8. a) The Claimant has failed the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so the defendant is not liable under the POFA 2012.
b) The Defendant believes that the Claimant has not followed the correct procedures outlined in the Protecion of Freedoms Act 2012 by identifying who the driver of the vehicle was and therefore the Defendant, as keeper, is not liable for the charge.
c) 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 £85. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery - verging on, in my opinion, an attempt to fraud the Defendant into paying extra.

9. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary 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.

10. 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

Coupon-mad

This is not confirming to the British Parking Associations, Code of Practice,

'Conforming' and you need an apostrophe in Association's or just put the 'British Parking Association Code of Practice'.

I didn't see the usual point about the C have no standing/authority from the landowner, as seen in most defences.

sellwin90

I hadn't put that in because I have no proof about it, hence why I was going to call the local authority tomorrow. Or should I just put it in and make them prove it?

sellwin90

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I didn't see the usual point about the C have no standing/authority from the landowner, as seen in most defences.

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.

I have added this paragraph from Bargepoles original. Will edit previous post to show

Coupon-mad

Yes, you just relax and put it in, as it's always the Claimant's case to prove.

And where have you seen any Britannia cases where they own the car park?

Answer = none!

They don't, these horrendous firms are parasites on other people's land, so they'd be forced to show their landowner contract - later, pre-hearing, in their evidence - and you might be able to find fault with it in terms of dates, clauses, definitions and restrictions, etc.