HX Car Park Management court claim

dizzyblonde2015

Hi
My story so far is as follows
I recieved a parking charge notice as registered keeper from HX. I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time. I have No proof of this. The claim was for "failed to purchase a P & D ticket within 10 minutes grace period"
Did not appeal as it is a waste of time.
LBC arrived from Gladstones so I sent a request to them for information that was suggested on this forum. Recieved the response I was expecting (nothing other than what I already had), having done a lot of research on here.
I've now got the Claim form from the court. I have done the AOS and my defence is to be submitted by 30th March.

I have submitted an SAR to HX for information regarding the ticket that was purchased as it is not specified they are telling me that the vehicle was in the car park x hours but only according to the cameras. So where is the proof the ticket was not purchased within 10 minutes?. Does not tell me how many hours parking was paid for.

I have been to the Car park in question and taken pic's of the signage. The sign right next to the pay and display machine is not the same as the one on the enterance and the small ones on the wall. The one next to machine does not tell you that you have to pay for a ticket within 10 minutes of entering the car park.

I am defending this claim as the Keeper and beleive that the NTK was none complient.
I have prepared a defence covering what I think I can rely on.
Please can you good people have a look over it and please let me know if it is ok to send.
Look forward to hearing from you
Thank you in advance
IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

HX Car Park Management (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________

DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at XXXX car park on xxxx date.

3. The allegation appears to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper 'not purchasing the appropriate parking time'.

4. The Particulars of Claim state that the PCN is being claimed from the Defendant “as the driver/keeper of the Vehicle” and that the “driver of the Vehicle agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days of issue”. The Particulars of Claim vaguely refer to a “breach of the terms of parking”, yet do not specify how the terms were breached. The requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 have not been met in these vague assertions, and a Cause of Action has not been identified.

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. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

6. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner. The terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed on the side of a tight entrance in which a vehicle turns from a busy road into the car park. It is located in such a place which would be difficult to read from a turning vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to stop the vehicle and read the font would be unable to do so without blocking the entrance/exit.

7. The terms on the Claimant's signage are 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. The wording on these signs are not consistent on the sign adjacent to the PDT Machine. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

8. 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 by means of litigation.

9. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, 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 £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

10. 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.

Name
Signature
Date

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Did it come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?

Redx

I would be clearly stating somewhere near the beginning that "the DEFENDANT was not the driver" , especially in the section where they assert that part of their case, so point 2 and point 4 for example

deny , deny , deny , because that addresses part of their POC

if they failed POFA with keeper liability due to non-compliant NTK plus they have failed to take court action against a driver, then as KEEPER and not the driver the defendant should win out, because POFA protects keepers against these allegations

dizzyblonde2015

Hi
Thank you so much for quick reply Keith
Yes Claim is from Northhampton and the issue date is 25th Feb 2019.

Cheers D

dizzyblonde2015

Hi Redex
Thank you for your quick reply. I will make it much clearer that the "defendant was not the driver" as you have suggested.
Many Thanks
D

Umkomaas

I am defending this claim as the Keeper and beleive that the NTK was none complient.

How is the NtK non-compliant (note spelling)?

Whatever the non-compliance is, you’ve not raised that in your defence. If the NtK is actually non-compliant, it will be a strong card to play. If it’s not in the defence you’ll be unlikely to be allowed to raise it later in the process.

KeithP

dizzyblonde2015 wrote: »

Claim is from Northhampton and the issue date is 25th Feb 2019.

You are almost right with your Defence due date, but as 30th March is a Saturday, you are allowed until 4pm on the next working day to file your Defence.

So...

With a Claim Issue Date of 25th February, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 1st April 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over a week away. Loads of time to produce a Defence, and it's good to see that you are not leaving 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.

Redx

and those pictures are not evidence of parking either , because the entry and exit pictures are of "time on site"

in which case , how long was the vehicle "on site" according to their pictures ?


and if parking was paid for , then how much of an alleged "overstay" was it ?

dizzyblonde2015

Hi Keith
Thank you for clarifying the time scale I need to adhere to and also how to submit my defence.
much appreciated x

dizzyblonde2015

Hi Redx
According to the cameras The vehicle was on site for 2hrs 45 mins. They are not pursing for an overstay just that the ticket was not purchased within 10 mins of entry to car park.
Cheers D

dizzyblonde2015

Hi U
I think that the NTK was non compliant due to the fact they didn't
Warn the keeper that if the parking charge remains outstanding after 28 days and the name and address of the driver has not been given, or otherwise known to the person entitled to the parking charge, that “creditor” will be entitled to recover the parking charge from the registered keeper.
Copied off parking prankster site
Cheers
D