County Court Claim Form

Coupon-mad

tinkpink wrote: »

I’ve read #post 2 unless I’m mistaken I can’t see a defence Re: overstay???
I am unsure what to add e.g delay in contacting me, no NTK, no reply as yet from NCP RE SAR???
Can you advise if I add these details now or is that something for later - witness statement??
Thanks

So you use bargepole's one like everyone does, and add your own facts.

tinkpink

Thanks guys for replying. I’ve been reading lots of defence statements
& have started a draft copy.
Will post here before sending & hopefully someone can advise if it’s alright.

tinkpink

Le_Kirk. I have no details of how long I allegedly over stayed.
I’ve requested info & photos etc (SAR) but had no response as yet.
It was NCP in Gloucester. The bloody frustrating thing is that I parked on the street & went to pay & display machine- it was out of order so I moved to the car park opposite not to risk getting a ticket!!
The info you’ve given me about threads & posts is most helpful. I’m a newbie to the site & trying hard to get my head around the acronym’s & posts etc.
Thanks again 👍

Coupon-mad

The bloody frustrating thing is that I parked on the street & went to pay & display machine- it was out of order so I moved to the car park opposite not to risk getting a ticket!!

On street, you wouldn't have got one, or could have appealed & won!

tinkpink

Story of my life! I’ll remember for next time!
Unfortunately I took bad advice to ignore in the hope they’d go away. I think there’s been a change in the law ??
Then a friend told me about this forum which has been very helpful with the likes of you helping out the likes of me - thank goodness 😅

Coupon-mad

No change in the law.

Le_Kirk

tinkpink wrote: »

Le_Kirk. I have no details of how long I allegedly over stayed.
I’ve requested info & photos etc (SAR) but had no response as yet.

In the letter that said it was a LBC/LBA/LBCCC did it not state the claimants cause of action with proof, as it should according to CPR? Failing that, when you receive the results of your SAR, you can build a defence around grace periods.

tinkpink

Hi guys This is my draft letter ANY help greatfully recieved
Thanks in advance IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM NO. X

BETWEEN

National Car Parks Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

X (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 XXXX, of which the Defendant is the Registered Keeper, was parked within the car park and had paid and displayed a valid parking ticket. According to the Claimant an alleged overstay occurred. As such the Claimant is to evidence this.
The first correspondence received was from Trace Debt Recovery Ltd. It stated that the Claimants case had been passed onto them for outstanding debt, letter dated 01/10/2018 some 79 days after the alleged offence. The Claimant contends this at first instance that this notice has not been delivered within the 14 days required by the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012), specified under sub-paragraph 9 (5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

Sub-paragraph 9 (5) specifies that the relevant period for delivery of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for the purposes of sub-paragraph 9 (4) is a period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. According to the PCN, the specified period of parking ended on 14/07/2018.


3 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 (PCNs), and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

4 In spite of the Defendant’s request, the Claimant has failed to supply any details of the signage that was in place at the time of the alleged contravention, which, according to the Claimant, details the terms and conditions of the car park. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 16.4 and Civil Practice Direction 16, Paragraph 7.3. Furthermore, the Letter of Claim sent on behalf of the Claimant did not include this information, which is a clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

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.

6 As a British Parking Association (BPA) member and approved operator, the Claimant must comply with the mandatory BPA Code of Practice (CoP), of which Version 6 was in force at the time of the alleged contravention. The Defendant notes the following points in relation to the BPA CoP Version 6, which was considered effectively ‘regulation’ by Judges at the Supreme Court.

6.1 The BPA CoP Section 13 requires the Claimant to allow two ‘grace periods’ – one reasonable period at the beginning of the parking period, and a minimum of 10 minutes at the end of the parking period. .

6.2 The BPA CoP Section 18.2 requires the Claimant to have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the car park, which must follow some minimum general principles. The signage is positioned such that it cannot be read by drivers as they enter the car park. It is assumed that the entrance signage in place at the time of the alleged contravention would have been similar at best, and puts the Claimant to strict proof. As such, the Claimant is in breach of the BPA CoP, and it is denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

6.3 The BPA CoP Sections 18.3 and 18.4 require the Claimant to have signage stating the specific parking terms throughout the car park. The Defendant has it on good authority that the signage in place at the time of the alleged contravention was in breach of these requirements, and puts the Claimant to strict proof of the signage that was present.

6.4 The BPA CoP Section 21.1 requires the Claimant to have signs notifying drivers that ANPR camera technology is in use at the car park, and what the captured data will be used for. The Defendant has it on good authority that no such signs were in place at the time of the alleged contravention, and puts the Claimant to strict proof. As such, the Claimant is in breach of the BPA CoP.

7 The Claimant is pursuing the Defendant as the Keeper of the vehicle, as per the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012, Schedule 4. The Defendant notes the following points in relation to Schedule 4 of the POFA.

7.1 Sections 2(2) and 2(3) require the Claimant to give adequate notice to the drivers of vehicles via adequate signage, which must specify the sum of the charge. The Defendant has it on good authority that the signage in place at the time of the alleged contravention was in breach of these requirements, and puts the Claimant to strict proof of the signage that was present. This is further reinforced by the BPA CoP Section 18.4.

8. The POFA, 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 there has been no Notice to Keeper recieved by the Defendant.

9. This claim amounts to an eye-watering £242.84,including £60.00 costs and ££50.00 Legal representative's costs, in a clear attempt at double recovery. The Defendant trusts that the presiding Judge will recognise this wholly unreasonable conduct as a gross abuse of process and may consider using the court's case management powers to strike the claim out of the court's own volition. The acid test is whether the conduct permits of a reasonable explanation, but the Defendant avers it cannot.

10. 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 costs allegedly incurred by already renumerated clerical staff working for BW Legal in issuing robo-claims.

11. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs at all because no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims at all. Claims such as this have recently been struck out by County Courts for reasons of:''substantial charge additional to the parking charge. Additional charge not recoverable under the POFA, Pre-action Protocol and CPRs. Abuse of process by claimant'' and substantial punitive costs on the indemnity basis have been claimed by Defendants, due to parking firm Claimants' unreasonable conduct in the matter of adding unrecoverable and imaginary 'damages' made up out of thin air. Debt collection agencies act on a no-win-no-fee basis for parking operators, so even if letters were sent by any third party, no such costs or damages have been incurred, in truth. Thus, there can be no 'damages' to pile on top of any parking charge claim, and the Defendant asks that the Court takes judicial notice of this industry's repeated abuse of consumers' rights and remedies.

12. It was held in the Supreme Court in Parkingeye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (where £85 was claimed, and no more) that a private parking charge already includes a very significant and high percentage in profit and more than covers the costs of running an automated regime of template letters.

13. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial, the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).


14 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.

Coupon-mad

That's quite good so far.

Not sure how this makes sense, as you said you've never seen the PCN?

7.3 Section 9 details the explicit requirements of a Notice to Keeper, including the timeline that must be given. The Claimant’s PCN is not compliant with Section 9(2)(f) of the POFA, and misleads the consumer about the statutory timeline. Indeed, the Claimant notes within their PCN that their right to pursue the Keeper is “subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of” the POFA.

Also, add in a version of this, as you need to attack the made-up 'damages/costs':

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75520074#Comment_75520074

HTH

tinkpink

thanks Coupon-mad I'll look at your suggestions now.