Court Claim Defence

The_Deep

£241 is far more than the Law allows for this sort of claim. The down market solicitors whom the PPCs engage know this, but, because they are solicitors, know that a lot of people will pay up.

It is in fact double charging and non claimable debt collectors' add ons. Imo, this is fraud, or, at the very least, improper conduct.

Complain to your MP, they are drawing up a new regulations to control these scammers.

On 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these private parking companies. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Were this to get to court and they won, the judge would be unlikely to award the claimant more than £175 - £200.

I urge you to report this grubby law firm to their regulatory body, the SRA.

https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/code/content.page

as I am sure they do not condone this conduct.

Half_way

Some local authorities have a map online with all the adored highways, footpaths, gritting routes etc online. sometimes this may be hidden away under footpaths/ footpath applications, school catchment areas etc

Fruitcake

Salman1 wrote: »

Local authority were not very supportive. And my place where my car was parked is not clearly shown under local council's map for CPZ. It's a new built area.

State that you believe the land where the vehicle was parked is/was a public road, and demand the scammers prove anything to the contrary.
Demand to see the contract with the scammers and the landowner to prove they have/had the right to issue charges and the right to pursue this to court.

Coupon-mad

Need guidance for defence based on my case

You don't. You need to use bargepole's concise defence example (NEWBIES thread), like everyone else does - why not read some defence threads and see how people use that as their base and then just add the facts about the signs, the fact it had the appearance of an unmarked public road, etc.?

Your story of miscommunication comes later, at Witness Statement & evidence stage, as explained in the NEWBIES thread. But not hearing from the IAS is NOT your defence to the actual alleged contract to pay £100!

KeithP

Salman1 wrote: »

Issue date on claim form: 01/04/2019
Court address: County Court Business Centre in Northampton

I've already submitted AOS.

With a Claim Issue Date of 1st April, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 7th May 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over two weeks away. Loads of time to produce a good 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 "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.

Salman1

Hi all,
Here's my defence which I will send tomorrow, please let me know if you have any comments (I took some wordings from other posts):


IN THE COUNTY COURT


Claim ref: XXX

between:


Parking and Property Management Ltd (Claimant)


-and-


SALMAN (Defendant)

---

DEFENCE:

• The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
• The claim is made with reference to the PCN (xxxx), where the Defender was the driver of the vehicle, registration xxxxx.
• The Defender believes that the land, Colonial Drive, where the vehicle was parked, was a public road. The car was clearly parked just outside the entrance of a private property (Edmunds House) on a public road, Colonial Drive.
• Please refer to photographic evidence (provided in the attachment) where it can be clearly seen that the tarmac surface of the public road Colonial Drive meets the cobbled/stone drive of the private property. The car was parked on the tarmac road not cobbled stone hence the location is not part of the private property.
• Further the Claimant didn’t display any clear boundaries of their legal area of operation/map/marking on the any notice board there.
• The parking location is in new built area and at the time of parking defendant’s believed that this location is a part of public road called Colonial Drive and comes under jurisdiction of Ealing Council, there are no red/yellow lines on the road and therefore it is permissible to park vehicle there anytime.
• 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 requested 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

(provided in the attachment)

No. Not at defence stage. So change that start to:

The Defendant will produce photographic evidence

...and remove your words about an attachment.

You've removed the usual defence points seen on every draft:

- the one that says they've added sums they can't (you can use the entire list of points under 'Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous' here):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75711757#Comment_75711757

and

- the one about the PPC not owning the land and not having landowner authority (#8 in that link).

You should also have #9 and #10 from that link too (they were all in the bargepole example but you pruned them for some reason).

Also you can copy #2 as you haven't said anything about the signs not forming a contract and that one would do for your case too.

And finally, how about:

(a) 'no grace period allowed to read the signs' if their photos were taken in a few minutes? You were given no chance to decide whether to stay or go.

(b) was it at night and dark when you parked? Unlit signage must be stated then!

Salman1

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No. Not at defence stage. So change that start to:

Thanks I've changed it as per your suggestions. Thanks.
Some exceptions are:
# lit sign or grace period as not sure if it helps this case.
and
#9 as the Particular of Claim doesn't state me as driver or keeper, it says
"
The Claimant's Claim is for the sum of £100 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of a PCN issue on 'date' at 'address'. The PCN relates to 'the car' under registration 'reg no'. The terms of PCN allowed the Defendant 28 days from the issue date to pay the PCN, but the Defendant failed to do so. Despite demand having been made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. The Claim also includes Statutory Interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum a daily rate of 0.02 from 'issue date'. The claimant also claims £60.00 contractual costs pursuant to PCN T & Cs"

Salman1

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No. Not at defence stage. So change that start to:

...and remove your words about an attachment.

Why shouldn't we provide photographic evidence at defence stage?

Salman1

Here's latest defence:


1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The claim is made with reference to the PCN (xxx), where the Defender was the driver of the vehicle, registration xxx.
3. The Defender believes that the land, Colonial Drive, where the vehicle was parked, was a public road. The car was clearly parked just outside the entrance of a private property (Edmunds House) on a public road, Colonial Drive.
4. The Defendant will produce photographic evidence where it can be clearly seen that the tarmac surface of the public road Colonial Drive meets the cobbled/stone drive of the private property. The car was parked on the tarmac road not cobbled stone hence the location is not part of the private property.
5. Further the Claimant didn’t display any clear boundaries of their legal area of operation/map/marking on the any notice board there.
6. The parking location is in new built area and at the time of parking defendant believed that this location is a part of public road called Colonial Drive and comes under jurisdiction of Ealing Council, there are no red/yellow lines on the road and therefore it is permissible to park vehicle there anytime.
7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorization from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
8. The terms on the Claimant's signage do not offer any kind of parking licence to anyone who isn't in a pre-authorised vehicle or holding a permit. If there is no offer of parking then the basic requirements for forming a contract with the driver are not present (in basic terms, 'offer', 'acceptance', and 'consideration'), and no contract can be formed. If there is no contract then there is no breach, and hence no charge for a breach. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
9. 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.
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.