Forum Home» Motoring» Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking

NTK for PCN - Access Road at Retail Park in Pontefract. - Page 3

New Post Advanced Search
Important update! We have recently reviewed and updated our Forum Rules and FAQs. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the latest version.

NTK for PCN - Access Road at Retail Park in Pontefract.

edited 30 November -1 at 12:00AM in Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking
45 replies 1.7K views
135

Replies

  • KeithPKeithP Forumite
    23.3K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    You say that you "received a Claim Form on 22.07.19", but what is the Issue Date on that Claim Form?
  • Hi Keith P, the issue date was 19.07.19, I received it on 22.07.19 and the Date of Service would be 24.07.19. Think this means I've got until 21.08.19 to submit my defence online.
  • KeithPKeithP Forumite
    23.3K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Hi Keith P, the issue date was 19.07.19, I received it on 22.07.19 and the Date of Service would be 24.07.19. Think this means I've got until 21.08.19 to submit my defence online.
    Yes, you are right with your target date, but there might be something useful here...


    With a Claim Issue Date of 19th July, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 21st August 2019 to file your Defence.


    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 [email protected]
    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 an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep 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.
  • Thanks for the advice KeithP,


    Is it good practice to include any images I have with my Defence, or are this just required when I go to court?


    Also,
    Send that pdf as an email attachment to [email protected]
    Is this a quicker/safer method of submitting my Defence than uploading it on the MCOL website?
  • KeithPKeithP Forumite
    23.3K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Is it good practice to include any images I have with my Defence, or are this just required when I go to court?
    Nothing gets send with a Defence.

    As post #2 of the NEWBIES thread explains, evidence comes later - at Witness Statement time.


    Is this a quicker/safer method of submitting my Defence than uploading it on the MCOL website?
    Post #2 of the NEWBIES thread explains why it is inadvisable to file your Defence via the MCOL website.
  • Important update! We have recently reviewed and updated our Forum Rules and FAQs. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the latest version.

  • Is it good practice to include any images I have with my Defence, or are this just required when I go to court?
    Originally posted by 2 Foot of Head

    Nothing gets send with a Defence.

    As post #2 of the NEWBIES thread explains, evidence comes later - at Witness Statement time.

    Yes, I've just been re-reading post #2
  • Egbert_NobaconEgbert_Nobacon Forumite
    393 posts
    First Anniversary
    ✭✭
    You haven’t mentioned any grace periods for reading the signs.

    You could replace points 8 & 9 with Coupon-mad’s ABUSE OF PROCESS as this may influence your judge.

    Number paragraphs accordingly.


    Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
    - CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
    (a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
    (b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

    - Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

    - The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

    - Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

    - According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

    - The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

    - Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:

    The Judge stated:-
    ''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

    - In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

    - There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

    - The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.
  • Hi Egbert,
    You haven’t mentioned any grace periods for reading the signs.

    I did originally include some text in point 6 which made reference to No Grace Period given to read the sign, and also a reference to Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule - (as per Coupon-Mads post in March). However, I deleted these as I thought that the comment "displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle" in point 6 alludes to the fact that there was no time or Grace Period given to read the signs.
    You could replace points 8 & 9 with Coupon-mad’s ABUSE OF PROCESS as this may influence your judge.


    I think I'm getting a little confused now. I thought that my Defence should be concise and contain the main points applicable and that my subsequent Witness Statement should contain all the extra information to put flesh on the bones, ie images, rulings from previous cases etc.

    All advice is greatly appreciated, as my only previous experience with legal jargon was reading through through Health and Safety Legislation. I realise that I am also up against it with regards to the timescale, but it was inevitable that I would receive a claim form immediately before setting off on a 3 three week holiday.
  • Egbert_NobaconEgbert_Nobacon Forumite
    393 posts
    First Anniversary
    ✭✭
    Remember you are playing judge bingo.

    You may get a clued up judge or one with little parking experience so you sometimes have to lead them by the nose.

    How can you possibly agree to a contract without stopping to read it ?

    The idea of the ABUSE OF PROCESS is that hopefully the court will strike out the claim with no hearing.

    You appear to have a good grasp of what is required and these are only suggestions.
    It’s your defence so your decision as to that which you are most comfortable with.
  • Le_KirkLe_Kirk Forumite
    12.1K posts
    10,000 Posts Seventh Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    If you want to submit a concise defence, you could search for a post by user Johnersh (a legal-type) also about Abuse of Process who advocates using a headline reference to the abuse of process but saves the detail for the witness statement stage. Use "Search this Forum" "Advanced Search" "User Name" - Johnersh and Abuse of Process as your Keyword(s)
Sign In or Register to comment.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support