Claim form received

KeithP

V.Annoyedlady wrote: »

Thank you Coupon-mad.
The driver was recorded on the VNPR camera leaving the car park 19 mins after the ticket ran out.

The driver was recorded?

Or was it perhaps the vehicle that was recorded by the ANPR camera?

V.Annoyedlady

Going to give it a rest for tonight. Back in the morning. Have a good night all.

V.Annoyedlady

Apologies. It was the vehicle recorded. They don't keep CCTV of people walking in and out of the car parks for evidence do they??

KeithP

V.Annoyedlady wrote: »

Apologies. It was the vehicle recorded. They don't keep CCTV of people walking in and out of the car parks for evidence do they??

No, but even if they did they wouldn't be able to relate them to a particular vehicle.

Umkomaas

V.Annoyedlady wrote: »

Apologies. It was the vehicle recorded. They don't keep CCTV of people walking in and out of the car parks for evidence do they??

KeithP wrote: »

No, but even if they did they wouldn't be able to relate them to a particular vehicle.

Nor be able to identify the individual - well, not unless they are famous, 8 feet tall, or have 3 heads!

Coupon-mad

V.Annoyedlady wrote: »

Thank you Coupon-mad.
The driver was recorded on the VNPR camera leaving the car park 19 mins after the ticket ran out.

OK, so use bargepole's concise defence as your base instead. You know where it is!

V.Annoyedlady

Good afternoon all,


Here we go again. I've had another look at some of Bargepole's defence examples and completed this. Any comments or suggestions very welcome. I need to try and get this defence finished by tomorrow at the latest.Thanks once again for all your help.


Claim no XXXXXXXX


Between:


Premier Parking Solutions Ltd


-And-


XXXXXXXX (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 XXXXXX , of which the defendant is the registered keeper was parked within the XXXXXXXX car park with a valid ticket.
3. As the PCN was issued almost 6 months ago the defendant cannot ascertain who was the driver on the day in question and the defendant states that she loans out her car to friends on occasions.
4. The Claim states that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver of the vehicle XXXXXXX on the day in question. These assumptions 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 Paragraphs 7.3 to 7.5.
5. The Claim states that the legal basis is brought against the Defendant for an ''overstay of parking period'' and is a breech of terms of parking. It is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle entered into any contractural agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied or by conduct. The breech referred to by the Claimant is reliant upon their own data being wrong from the outset as the ANPR data of VRN's and Ticket Machine Log data captured are not validated with each other automatically or manually concludes that either the system or business model or both are unfit for purpose.
6. It is also disputed that the Claimants signage erected with the car park is of a large enough font and displayed adequately for patrons to read thoroughly. The signage is also not lit adequately and is quite dirty. The terms and conditions on the signage are not set out in a sufficiently clear manner that would be enable any reasonable person reading them to be bound to any form of contract. The £100 penalty charge is not highlighted in large enough font to be immediately noticable. Some additional signage is positioned over six feet from the ground making it very difficult to read them.
7. Neither the claimant nor BW Legal have been forthcoming with information as to the periods of grace at the site in question.. It has been noted that the claimant has a BPA membership logo on the car park signs when in fact they are not a current member. The IPC, of which the claimant is a member state that grace periods should cover the period before and after parking. The IPC does not state what these times should be, even as a minimum. As the claimant has not stated on the car park signs anywhere what the grace period times are then the defendant is challenging the legality of the PCN.
8. The Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land under the correct address or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner (WPD Property Investments Ltd) to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
9. 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 for ''Contractural costs''. Without an invoice to prove this the Defendant believes this is an attempt at double recovery.
10. In summary, the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not formed a contract with the Defendant, has no way to conclusively prove that the parking overstay actually occurred and that the Claim has no basis with which to bring the defendant to court. The Defendant requests that the court denies payment of any amount to the Claimant and that the Defendants costs are paid for by the Claimant.

I believe that the facts contained in this defence are true.

V.Annoyedlady

What are your opinions on the above defence Keith P and Coupon-mad? Do you think this is good enough to submit? I would really appreciate some advice before sending this off.

Many thanks.

V.Annoyedlady

Is everyone on holiday or something? :-)
I know the forum is busy but I'm surprised that nobody has responded to the post I put on for my defence.
I would really appreciate some advice as to whether this is okay.
Many thanks.

Redx

V.Annoyedlady wrote: »

Is everyone on holiday or something? :-)
I know the forum is busy but I'm surprised that nobody has responded to the post I put on for my defence.
I would really appreciate some advice as to whether this is okay.
Many thanks.

this is why I have not replied

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75126216#Comment_75126216

and probably why KeithP never replied to your query naming him too

the devil is in the detail in that post above that I made some time ago

perhaps somebody WITH a legal background MAY reply , meanwhile , READ my signature below