MCOL Defence for a 6 minute overstay

HolyGuacamole

Hi guys

I've got to submit a defence via MCOL to try to prevent a CCJ being claimed against me.

I overstayed in an NCP car park by 6 minutes (1 hour stay paid for upfront). I assumed a ten minutes grace period, but alas NCP and BW Legal have other ideas. There is a sum of £240 for my head.

I've looked around for a suitable draft response but to no avail.

Can anyone offer me any advice on how to tackle this?

Thank you

Redx

see post #2 of the NEWBIES sticky thread, its all in there

and download and reads the BPA CoP, part #13, on grace periods too, because that is a major argument in your favour


what is the DATE OF ISSUE on your claim form ? and did it come from the CCBC in Northampton ?

HolyGuacamole

Thanks Redx. I'll take a better look this time!

Issued from CCBC Northampton on 29th Jan.

Coupon-mad

This PCN is NOT for a six minute overstay, so please don't defend on that basis!

A PCN cannot cannot cannot have been issued for six minutes. I don't want you to proceed on a misunderstanding.

It will be for a keypad error in the VRN, so that NCP attributed no payment at all, to the stay. Like all the other cases exactly the same, that we win almost every time.

Email NCP's Data Protection Officer a SAR, tonight (see their privacy page for the contact email). The NEWBIES thread tells you how to word it.

Do that NOW, first, and include a line asking specifically for a redacted partial VRN list from the machines, of payments attributed to all cars on site during that hour.

Other VRNs/payments that have been matched to other vehicles can be partially redacted, but the list must include any near-miss VRN, if their data notes (which you also want to see) have identified a wrong VRN - minor keying error.

KeithP

HolyGuacamole wrote: »

Issued from CCBC Northampton on 29th Jan.

With a Claim Issue Date of 29th January, you had until Monday 18th February, a week ago, to do the Acknowledgement of Service.

Did you do the AoS by that date? Please confirm.

If you did the AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 4th March 2019 to file your Defence.

That's less than a week away. Loads of time to produce a Defence, but don't 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 "defended". 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.

ShakeItOff

Post #2 on the NEWBIES thread is where you need to be. Check out the defences section - there are a few different examples. When you're ready, post up your defence for comment.

While you're at it, it would also be worth sending a Subject Access Request to NCP and the DVLA via email (emails on their privacy pages). There is a Legal Beagles template on the NEWBIES thread. They have 30 days to respond, so don't delay.

HolyGuacamole

done - thank you!

HolyGuacamole

KeithP - yes the acknowledgement of service was done on 18th Feb and was confirmed as received same date.

HolyGuacamole

I'll put a defence together and post it here. Critiques most welcome! Thanks all

HolyGuacamole

Defence


1. It is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
2. The IPC code of conduct B15.1 states that a grace period must be allowed in order that a driver might spot signage, go up to it, read it and then decide whether to accept the terms or not.
3. The Defendant was first made aware of the alleged parking contravention on 29/01/19 when a “Notice of Claim” was received from BW Legal. The Defendant did not receive the letter (due to being away) until 15/02/19 and was unable to get hold of a BW Legal representative by telephone until 18/02/19, where further details of the alleged contravention could be gained. A contravention time of 14:19 was alleged by BW Legal on this date. No confirmation of alleged entry time, exit time or specifics of alleged contravention were able to be provided to the Defendant. This does not constitute a legitimate claim against the defendant.
4. A parking receipt was kept from that particular date by the registered keeper but without any specifics to the alleged parking contravention being provided within the “particulars of claim” it is unreasonable for the claimant to expect the defendant to actually understand or defend the claim.
5. A subject access request has been made to the Claimant directly, namely National Car Parks on 25/02/19 to request that further information be extracted from the relevant ANPR machine, so that the defendant may try to understand what claim is being made. No such information has been provided to the Defendant at the time of this submission.
6. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 para. 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed, the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4.
7. 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. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
8. In addition to an original PCN penalty, which was never received by the Defendant, and for which liability is denied, the Claimants have stated a “principle debt” of £160, pursuant to Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Terms and conditions which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.
9. No calculation or explanation is given for the Principle debt of £160.
10. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.
11. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the defendant is keeping a note of wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

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.

Redx

as this is NCP, which is a BPA member, why are you quoting the IPC code of practice ?


post #2 told you where to look


and why are you using the legal word "penalty" if this is a parking charge notice ? (unless it was a penalty ? like a station or port etc ?)