Didn't receive initial fine until court papers arrived

[Deleted User]

FYI you can claim a fee remission prospectively or retrospectively.

The concept of claiming fees back is helpful if you need to lodge documents urgently (i.e. just get it filed), but aspirational if, of course, it is tricky to lay your hands on the fee at all.

It'd be helpful for you to work out why you might not have received the post relating to your car, whereas you did the court documents - assuming it all went to the same address.

DoaM

Such a shame that court papers cause people to react first, think later. (That's what the PPCs are relying on - either paying the claim or filing a poor defence when court papers arrive).

If people were able to stop, think, research first they'd find sites like this and be able to properly kick the PPCs into touch.

System

Just echoing Johnesh's comment. The form for fee remission is the EX160

There is a step by step guide here for the OP (and those that come later) to use.

https://www.gov.uk/get-help-with-court-fees

From the OP's earlier comments, would suggest there is a good chance of getting help with the fees. And as it says in the guide for it - You can apply for a refund for a fee paid in the last 3 months.

Coupon-mad

What does this mean?

archived user
Guest

Posts: n/a

KeithP

It means that whoever made that post has exercised their GDPR 'right to be forgotten' and has asked MSE to remove their username etc.

[Spoiler: If you were to 'quote' that post you can see who that user is/was.
Looks like the forum software isn't as clever as it should be in this day and age. ]

FuzzyDuck1

Hi,
Sorry for delayed response my Illness took hold of me until today where I am able to reply.

I am in the process of filling in the N244 form but am struggling with the following:

"What order are you asking the court to make and why"

"What level of judge does your hearing need"

"What information will you be relying on, in support of your application"

Any help would be greatly appreciated as I'd like to get this sent today. Thank you

nosferatu1001

1) This is the six point draft order mentioend everywhere. It sets aside the CCJ, orders the claimant to file particulars of claim, and reserves costs UNLESS they discotninue.

2) Not found this in the set aside thread? DDJ from memory

3) WEll thats your witness statement ,any evidence to support this, and your defence

FuzzyDuck1

Hi,

I am having difficulty in looking at the sticky threads.... Ive tried searching under the 6 point draft order and "Set aside"

Umkomaas

SharonA wrote: »

Hi,

I am having difficulty in looking at the sticky threads.... Ive tried searching under the 6 point draft order and "Set aside"

Do a forum search on keywords '6 point order' which should turn up the relevant posts.

HOW TO USE THE FORUM SEARCH FUNCTION:

Hit your 'Back' button to get back to the forum thread list. On the bar just above the threads you'll see the 'Search' function. Click on the 'Advanced Search' button and on the following page place your keyword(s) in the 'Search By Keyword(s)' and make sure the 'Show Results As' button (at the foot of the window) is changed from 'Threads' to 'Posts'.

FuzzyDuck1

Hi,

I have today composed the following draft.... any suggestions to any edits required would be much appreciated.





Background

1. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However, the Claimant has no cause of action and has filed this claim without providing any information to the Defendant whatsoever. The defendant asserts that she was the registered keeper but was not the driver as she hasn’t driven the vehicle at all since the beginning of 2018. As the defendant was not the driver, the registered keeper cannot say whether the driver did breach the terms and conditions at the car park and she has no legal obligation to reveal any drivers of the vehicle.”
The burden of proof rests with the Claimant to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with the terms and conditions of the Claimant and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge.
Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:
Understanding keeper liability:
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time.


1.1 I, The Defendant, having only the vague Particulars of Claim (POC) and no contractual agreement - any breach is denied.



2. The POC Fails to state if the Claimant is claiming against the Driver or Registered Keeper. The Claimant has and failed to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paragraphs 3.2, 3.3 and 7.3 to 7.5.

2.1. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction and the Defendant had no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. This information was only received in a letter from BW Legal dated 31.01.2019 (received by the defendant 06.02.2019). Issue Date of County Court Claim was 04.01.2019. Giving the Defendant no reasonable time to submit their fair defence as per Civil Procedure Rule 7.4.

2.2. The vague POC discloses nothing that can lead to a claim in law. The parking event was far too long ago to expect a registered keeper to recall the day or who was driving.



3. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 (the POFA) has not been complied with. The registered keeper was unaware of the PCN and does not admit to being the driver of the vehicle in question on the date in question, as such the keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time/with mandatory wording.



4. This case can be distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an un-denied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding the park for free time. None of these facts are relevant in this case.



5. Had any contravention taken place (and this is denied), it can only have been that signage on and around the site in question was small, unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP). The Claimant would need to be put to strict proof that these Signs were Clear, Visable and unambiguous at the Time and Date of the alleged Contravention.

5.1. The Claimant was a member of the BPA at the time (and as of today’s date still is a member) and committed to follow its requirements and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of compliance with the applicable Code of Practice.



6. It is denied that the Claimant has any legal authority to bring this claim. The legal Claimant is the Landowner (which is Tamworth Borough Council). Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the Landowner to National Car Parks Limited and that this chain of contracts was valid in its entirety on the date of the alleged offence, being 11th July 2018 giving the Claimant rights to bring any claim in its own name.



7. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted or even known about by myself, the Registered Keeper, as i was 3rd Party in this case and therefore as per the Doctrine of Privity to contract, a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations upon any person who is not a party to the contract.


8. Prior to any court hearing the Defendant has requested a Subject Access Request (SAR) to National Car Parks Limited and BW Legal to include:

8.1.(i) copies of the signs on which the Claimant relies and confirm with photographic evidence, that the signs were in situ on the date of the event. The Defendant insists that the claimant is put to proof that all of these signs were on display on the contravention date and at the time the alleged contravention took place.

(ii) Images of the signs that were at the entrance to the site on the date in question and confirmation that the signs met the BPA CoP that applied at the time of the alleged parking event. (iii) copies of any letters sent, including the original PCN and/or Notice to Keeper.
(iv) Ticket Machine Data on the alleged Contravention date.
(v) All VRPN data from the alleged contravention date to establish if the car had entered and exited more than once in case of Drop off / Collection to which the driver would be within reasonable timescales for “Grace Periods” for a minimum of 10 minutes.




9. The POFA 2012, does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. That sum cannot have exceeded the BPA Code of Practice maximum of £100 and the Claimant cannot recover additional charges.



10. The Claimant has added “costs” onto the alleged PCN £100 now claiming “Principal Debt of £160.00”, despite using a solicitor to file the claim, who must be well aware that the CPR 27.14 does not permit such charges to be recovered in the Small Claims Court. The claimants Legal Recovery (BW LEGAL) have made reference to the letter dated 31.01.2019 setting out their “Clients Position” to the Core Terms and Conditions as Follows “The Signage erected at the Car Park contained, Inter Alia, The following terms and Conditions: A Penalty charge notice will be issued for failure to pay for parking”. Penalties are not allowed.

10.1 The Parking Eye v Beavis case confirmed that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead their case in damages and could only collect the already inflated parking charge (in that case, £85) which more than covered the very minimal costs of running an automated/template letter parking regime.


10.2. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show how any alleged costs/damages have been incurred and that it formed a prominent, legible part of any terms on signage, and that it was, in fact, expended. To add vague damages plus alleged 'legal costs' on top is a wholly disingenuous attempt at double recovery, and is not compliant with either PoFA 2012 or The British Parking Associations (to which the claimant is a member) Code of Conduct.


10.3. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.



11. The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success.




I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true to the best of my belief.


Name xxxxxxx

Signature

Date 21st February 2019