County Court Business Centre Letter Received - help needed - stressed!

BellaBunny

start with the BARGEPOLE concise defence
Sorry where do I find this

Redx

you need to carefully study post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread near the top of this forum (using a laptop, not a phone)

click on & read some of the links that apply, like any by BARGEPOLE and LOC123

one of them links to his concise defence, the foundation stone of any court case defence for private parking tickets


in post #1 you said you had read it, but I think not !!!

BellaBunny

Apologies I did read this but there is a lot to take in and this is all very foreign to me. Appreciate the help.

Redx

I would be surprised if you managed to take it all in at the same sitting, its a lot of reading and research and you have been picked to play this game despite your lack of knowledge about the topic & Rome wasnt built in a day !

if that thread wasnt there, you would have little or no resource to study, which is why its all brought under the one roof and kept up to date by dedicated people like CM

because you posted that you had read it in post #1, I did not refer you to it later in my replies, but then when you asked where to find what I said, it was clear that you didnt realise that you use that post as your "bible"

I can assure you there is little or nothing that isnt covered in that thread as it has been honed over 6 years into the info it contains today

so you ask yourself that question above into a mirror, and then you answer it by saying "in the NEWBIES thread post #2" - instead of us telling you the same thing

and if any more private parking tickets arrive for you, its the same thread, but not post #2 UNLESS it gets to MCOL stage again

when the government changes all this later this year, that thread will be updated accordingly, but until then , if you ask a question already covered in that post , you will be pointed back to it time and time again, until you get fed up with the same reply, lol

BellaBunny

Have drafted up a defence using points I found across a few other threads, and a thread containing info about the same car park where mine happened. Would be very grateful if someone could give it a read and give me any points or help where it is needed!!

Claim No: ______

Between:

(Claimant) & (Defendant)

DEFENCE

I am ____, defendant in the above case and I deny that I am liable for the entirety of the claim due to the reasons explained in the below defence.

1. I believe that the signs of terms and conditions fail the test of ‘large lettering’ and prominence, as established in the ParkingEye V Beavis case. Terms and conditions not seen on entry and are in very small print. The terms on the date were not seen, therefore the elements of a binding contract on any known charges are absent.

2. On further investigation I have come to doubt there being relevant planning permission for the pole-mounted ANPR camera on site on the date of the accused contravention (22/07/18) or for the advertisement consent for the associated contractual signage in and around the site in question. If this is the case please can this be evidenced, not with an application but with the approved permission for that date. If this was not in place than this would make the request of details from DLVA void. As there was a witness present in the vehicles at all times I am certain that there was no ticket officer present.

3. As outlined in the British Parking Association Code of Practice section 13 a fair grace period is to be applied. Within the first correspondence from National Car Parks, the time stated is merely minutes over the ten minute minimum, I am not certain of the validity of the ANPR timings as myself and the mentioned witness both note this to be a very short time in the mentioned site and do not believe this to have breached the grace period.

4. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something that courts should want to support.

5. 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 I entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

6. There has been no explanation for the grounds on which the requested claim amount has been established, a parking ticket for this site would be a small charge, in fact within the grace period this should be null. The original PCN charge was £60 and it seems an extra £100 has been added onto this with zero relevance, just as a ploy for making money and scaring the defendant into paying before the amount gets even higher.

I would appreciate the above being taken into consideration and for the decision to be made to strike out this claim based on the above points.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge.

Signed
Date

Redx

cant see the "no landowner authority" mentioned

the original pcn would have been £100 (reduced to £60 for early payment), then they have added on £60 for debt collelction fees which is not recoverable, so no what you said above

you need to address their POC from the MCOL form (or lack of)

Coupon-mad

This should be number 1, as every paragraph in the defence needs numbering:

1. [STRIKE]I am ____, defendant in the above case and I deny that I am liable[/STRIKE]
The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim due to the reasons explained in the below defence.

This is not worded properly for a defence (you don't use the first person 'I' in a defence) and the Judge is unlikely to take planning permission into account, and don't write politely: 'please can this be evidenced'...TBH I wouldn't both with this at all:

On further investigation I have come to doubt there being relevant planning permission for the pole-mounted ANPR camera on site on the date of the accused contravention (22/07/18) or for the advertisement consent for the associated contractual signage in and around the site in question. If this is the case please can this be evidenced, not with an application but with the approved permission for that date. If this was not in place than this would make the request of details from DLVA void. As there was a witness present in the vehicles at all times I am certain that there was no ticket officer present.

Again, not to be written in the first person, so change this and all similar:

I am not certain of the validity of the ANPR timings as myself

Remove this as his comes from an old defence, not what we would suggest:

4. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something that courts should want to support.

You simply need to look at bargepole's example defences in the NEWBIES thread. there are only two of them linked there!

BellaBunny

Thanks both for your comments. Have edited but will give a proper read through again tomorrow as my brain is mush right now.

In your experience, with the defence properly formed and sent, is the most likely outcome for the company to drop this and it not actually go to court or is the more likely option to actually go through the court process?

Coupon-mad

Most likely to go through the court process, so stay strong. Call their bluff and most people here win (99% wins have been reported over two years!). And a life experience!