Claim Form (County Court Business Centre) - Excel Parking

KeithP

Remember...

...you have until 4pm on Monday 29th April 2019 to file your Defence.

Carthesis

Thanks for the reminder, but it's already gone in today as I'm not going to have time to do anything with it over the weekend or on Monday.

Carthesis

So my Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track came through over the weekend.

I therefore assume my next steps are to fill out the N180 form, which appears to be straightforward. Any particular pitfalls to be aware of on this? I've looked at the post on the NEWBIES thread which links to another post, and is it simply just a case of following that?

Quentin

No need to "assume'

Use #2 in the newbies faq thread as your guide to the court proceedings right through to the hearing

KeithP

Carthesis, please check again.

Did that Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track really come from the County Court Business Centre on the next working day following your filing of your Defence?

Or is it from the Claimant - as described in point 7 in the list in post #23 above?

Carthesis

KeithP wrote: »

Carthesis, please check again.

Did that Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track really come from the County Court Business Centre on the next working day following your filing of your Defence?

Or is it from the Claimant - as described in point 7 in the list in post #23 above?

I'm not sure how to tell the difference - it came attached to the N149A, and didn't have any kind of signed sheet indicating it was from Excel. It states in the bottom corner it was "Produced by: Ms Jennifer Grace". The N180 itself was totally blank. MCOL shows the DQ being sent out immediately on receipt of the defence.

Coupon-mad

That's the proper DQ.

Carthesis

So - an update on this:

I got a letter from the CCBC saying this had been assigned to my local court, and that the claimant had until 24th August to pay the hearing fee, with a date set for the 26th September, and that if they didn't pay, the matter would be set aside.

Having had no confirmation one way or another, I phoned the court today who confirmed that Excel paid the fee on the 2nd August and that the hearing on the 26th will go ahead. Apparently they don't send out confirmation of such things, and you're expected to "just know" that this is going ahead ...

Clairns

So much of the court workings are outdated- a nice e-mail notification that they have paid the fee and the hearing is confirmed would be appreciated!!! Maybe the ability to upload evidence/witness statements/defence online would be expected in this day and age too.

I feel parts of the process are weighted in the claimant's favour, if nothing else because they are used to the system.

Carthesis

First draft of my Witness Statement for comments. Any thoughts from anyone?

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT SHEFFIELD

(Combined Court, The Law Courts, 50 W Bar, Sheffield)

Claim No. "Claim No."
Between
Excel Parking Services Ltd (Claimant)
and
"My Name" (Defendant)

---

WITNESS STATEMENT

---

I am "My Name", of "My Address", the Defendant in this matter. Attached to this statement is a bundle of documents marked BR1 through BRx, to which I will refer. I will say as follows:

1. The Claimant asserts that I owe the sum stated on the Claim Form in respect of a Charge Notice (CN) for an unspecified contravention at the date and location also shown. The Claim Form gives no particulars, but the Defendant assumes the Claimant asserts the Defendant entered into a contract, subsequently breached that contract and must pay a contractual charge, with further undefined and unexplained additional charges.

2. I confirm that the essence of my defence to this claim is that:

a. Payment for parking was made using a cashless system (RingGo), which makes no provision for the printing of a ticket to display;

b. The payment service did not indicate any failure to make payment and responded as if payment had been made;

c. The failure of any aspect of the payment service is not the responsibility of the Defendant;

d. Further, the Defendant submits that no losses have been incurred by the Claimant, as payment for the parking period has been made - refer to Item BR1;

e. Notwithstanding the above, the pursuit of the Defendant as “Registered Keeper” (RK) is believed to be erroneous as the requirements of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA2012) Schedule 4 Paragraph 8 have not been met.

3. The facts are that the vehicle in question, registration AAxxABC, of which the Defendant is the Registered Keeper, was parked on the material date in Thingy-Wotsit Car Park (“the car park”). I can confirm that the Defendant was the Driver of the vehicle at this time, and that I was using this location for parking during work hours on an irregular basis due to the convenience of being able to pay for parking via the RingGo app.

4. On arriving at the car park on the alleged date at approximately 08:50, I drove to the far end of the car park to find a “space” (a location in which, as with the rest of the car park which is divided into widely separated areas, is unmarked). The approximate location of the vehicle within the car park is indicated on the plan of the car park provided as Item BR2.

5. Having parked the vehicle, and having previously (and subsequently) used the car park, I began walking the the car park exit while using my mobile phone to pay for parking via the aforementioned app. This is a multi-step process via the app which involves firstly selecting the correct location on one screen; then selecting the correct vehicle registration and the required duration of parking on the next screen; and finally confirming the payment on the final screen before being presented with confirmation of a successful transaction. This process is illustrated in the current version of the app in Item BR3. On confirming the payment, the app displayed a screen confirming the payment, after which I replaced my phone in my pocket and continued to walk to work.

6. Later in the day, at approximately 15:30, I received a notification of an email from RingGo, which I took to be confirmation of the payment made. Unfortunately, I paid no heed to this typical and expected notification, nor the delay in it being received. This email did in fact contain the receipt for the parking period, which is included as Item BR1.

7. On returning to the vehicle later that evening at approximately 17:30, I was obviously both confused and dismayed to discover a red and white envelope bearing the legend “this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice” on the windscreen. Opening this envelope, I found a piece of paper directing the driver of the vehicle to the “MyParkingCharge” website. This website is shown as Item BR4, although I note that despite the assertions of the windscreen notice to the contrary, this website makes clear references to “the processing, management and collection of Charge Notices”.

8. Based on previous experience, and knowing that I had paid for the relevant parking period, I did not immediately challenge the Charge Notice (which I will now refer to as a “Notice to Driver” (NtD), this being that the windscreen document was, despite assertions otherwise) and instead chose to wait for the Notice to Keeper (NtK) which would allow me to additionally rely on POFA2012. The NtK was received on or about the 26th November 2018, with an issue date of 22nd November. I note that this falls without the period specified under POFA2012 for an NtK following an NtD, which requires receipt of the NtK between 28 and 56 days after the alleged incident. I also note that Keeper details were obviously requested from DVLA outwith these timescales, seemingly in contravention of POPFA2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 11 (1) (b).

9. I subsequently contacted the Claimant via posted letter, explaining the circumstances and providing proof of payment for the relevant parking period. I have included a reprint of the letter as Item BR5, however I am unable to evidence postage of the letter. I therefore accept that the lack of response from the Defendant could be due to non-receipt of the letter in question.

10. Once it became evident that despite my attempts to resolve this issue the Claimant was electing to pursue this matter via litigation, I placed a Subject Access Request (SAR) with the Claimant under GDPR. A copy of this letter is provided as Item BR6, with the partial information supplied by the Claimant provided as Item BR7 which includes email correspondence with the Claimant’s “Debt and Litigation Manager”. I note that the submitted information was not submitted within the legally mandated timescales given in GDPR, and further note that some elements of my request were not fulfilled, namely provision of pay and display terminal (PDT) records; payment records received via the RingGo app; and a copy of the original windscreen NtD.

11. It is my position that, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter.

12. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Signature:

Date: