NCP Fine - BW Legal Letter of Claim

Le_Kirk

You might want to explain a bit more about the "appeal" as at the moment it just sits there with no explanation, the judge might find it confusing. Why are you contemplating post? Always recommended to use e-mail as per KeithP's advice below: -

When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

1. Print your Defence.
2. Sign it and date it.
3. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
4. Send that pdf as an email attachment to [EMAIL="CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk"]CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk[/EMAIL]
5. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
6. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
7. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
8. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

KeithP

RINCO wrote: »

I have received county court claim paperwork from Northampton issue dated 13th March. I have Acknowledged service today 29th March.

With a Claim Issue Date of 13th March, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 15th April 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over two weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence but best not leave it to the very last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Coupon-mad

According to the ANPR photographs provided by the Claimant, the Defendant’s vehicle seems to be claimed to have been captured at the exit after a mere 13 minutes and 29 seconds on site. This information is unevidenced, emanating from two different cameras. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their timings and how/when the ANPR cameras & clocks were synchronised, given that the Defendant disputes the time shown. Such systems are known to be unreliable from a timing/synchronisation point of view and the systems are not audited by their trade body. As stated in BPA approved operator scheme code of practice Section 13 (13.2) “allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action”

Further and in the alternative, 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 be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay.

Re that last sentence - really? Don't copy stuff not relevant to your case!

RINCO

Thanks all for your responses. I will attach via PDF and email as you have explained.

I've updated the defence based on the feedback given. I was going to mention accuracy of ANPR would I need to provide any further evidence to support the fact that they aren't known to be accurate or will the Judge know this?

I have added some extra words to the statement regarding the initial appeal just to try and make it very clear it was not submitted by me and it bears no representation.

Ammendements in Red

Thanks again for the support.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

NCP (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________


The facts are that the vehicle with registration ****** of which the Defendant was the Registered Keeper was captured on an ANPR camera on the 00/00/0000 entering and exiting a private car park/land located at *********, ******. The vehicle entered the carpark with intent to park in order to meet a elderly relative in the town centre who was collecting medication. Instead, the relative was already at the car park and therefore it was decided to leave after trying to consult the terms and conditions of the car park in order to deduce the grace period. It was thought that vehicle had not stayed for enough time in order to incur a PCN and left.

According to the ANPR photographs provided by the Claimant, the Defendant’s vehicle seems to be claimed to have been captured at the exit after a mere 13 minutes and 29 seconds on site. This information is unevidenced, emanating from two different cameras. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their timings and how/when the ANPR cameras & clocks were synchronised, given that the Defendant disputes the time shown. Such systems are known to be unreliable from a timing/synchronisation point of view and the systems are not audited by their trade body. As stated in BPA approved operator scheme code of practice Section 13 (13.2) “allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action”

The terms on the Claimant's signage are 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 within a grace period and / or obstructing access and egress. There is no clear mention of a grace period duration. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

Further and in the alternative, 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.

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 in the court in their own name. Even if they hold such authority, the Claimant is put to strict proof that this includes litigation against patrons who stay less than 30 minutes.

With regards to an appeal submitted on 31st August 2018 this was not an accurate statement of events. The details within the initial appeal were not submitted by the defendant. This can be seen by viewing the email address attached to the appeal as it is under a different name. The defendant does not support or endorse this appeal in any form.

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 that the facts stated in this defence are true

Coupon-mad

I was going to mention accuracy of ANPR would I need to provide any further evidence to support the fact that they aren't known to be accurate

Evidence comes later, at WS stage, as shown in the NEWBIES thread.

RINCO

Thanks CM

I am planning on submitting the defence this weekend as I am away the following week.

Compared to other defences on here I am a little worried it may not be strong enough or maybe I'm being over critical!! I don't think there is anything else I can add at this point. Any other thoughts / opinions before the week is out would be much appreciated.

Coupon-mad

I think your case, that you did not stay/accept any parking contract, is a strong one.

RINCO

Thanks for the re assurance! Will submit the defence shortly via PDF and keep you posted

rachity

AfaIk, the grace periods are not dependant on someone actually parking.


The first period is to find a place to park, read the site signage, etc.


The driver then either chooses to stay, & a contact is formed, or
Leaves the car park, again having the benefit of the 'exit' grace period.

RINCO

Its been 25 days since I submitted my defence and it is registered on MCOL. I have not had any further communications I seem to remember reading somewhere that the claimant has 28 days to respond after the defence is submitted or is this not true?