Court for tickets x 3 for parking at home address

StillSkint

Hi, my partner has received 3 x court summons from BW legal, for parking in a visitors space at our home address, we have one allocated car parking space which I have the permit for, and there are a number of visitor bays which you can park in for 24 hours and then not return within 24 hours but don’t state there will be any penalty or how much.. This is in a gated car park which has an entry code.

There is on road parking also, which annoyingly is usually full of peoples cars who have allocated parking spaces, as it is closer to the entrance to the buildings. This means after work my partner usually parks on the road or in a visitor bay. We have also had a number of friends staying who have borrowed the car and my son regularly drives it. There is adequate and some clear signage, some in very poor condition and almost unreadable, but the contents are ambiguous and don’t mention a penalty charge, visitor bays are not mentioned on the terms and conditions, only permit holders. We were under the understanding from the management company that the parking company is here to enforce against outsiders using the car park, not to target the actual residents. The parking company have been noted by other residents to be unprofessional, rude and aggressive.

I have been scouring this forum but have just confused myself - and I can’t find any threads from similar situations.

The firm is BW Legal, who appear to be debt collectors rather than solicitors, the parking company is Armtrac. The amount of correspondence is relentless and bordering on harrassment.

Coupon-mad

my partner has received 3 x court summons

Your partner hasn't received any summonses. This isn't a criminal court matter.

Your partner just needs to read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread re what to do.

What's the issue date of all 3 claims (top right of the N1 forms)?

As they are all about the same facts they should have collated them into one claim. Search the forum for these exact words:

Two claims? abuse of process

To find the added defence paragraph to put in to ask the court to CONSOLIDATE the 3 claims into one - and also copy the same paragraph into his email when he emails the signed/dated defence to the CCBCAQ email as per the standard advice here, and keep repeating that request at every chance, every stage, until a Judge spots it and orders consolidation into one hearing.

It goes without saying he is the Defendant, not you, so your name appears nowhere.

StillSkint

ok thanks, they have also done the same for my son who has not lived here since April last year and is travelling overseas. I have repeatedly told BW legal he does not live here, and today he also got a court claim - I open his mail by agreement made before he went travelling, do I just send his back with a covering letter that it could not be served?

Coupon-mad

NO. You are not the person to respond to either! This applies to your partner and son:

It goes without saying he is the Defendant, not you, so your name appears nowhere.

Re your son, he needs to fill in the bit about CONTESTING JURIDICTION and state he has not lived in the UK for over a year and his permanent domicile in 2019 is in xxxx country and give his address and state that the Claimant knows this already (I hope you did tell them his address and not just returned stuff marked 'gone away' which is pointless?).

I believe contesting jurisdiction costs £100 as an application (check the N1 form). This should have been more robustly handled pre-court to avoid this. Your son needed to respond earlier and give his address abroad for service & ask for yours to be erased from the data they held.

KeithP

Your answer to this question please...

Coupon-mad wrote: »

What's the issue date of all 3 claims (top right of the N1 forms)?

and similarly for your son's claim.

StillSkint

KeithP wrote: »

Your answer to this question please...

and similarly for your son's claim.

They are all issued 3rd May. They all arrived together today.

My son does not have an address, as he is travelling around and staying in hostels.

StillSkint

Coupon-mad wrote: »

NO. You are not the person to respond to either! This applies to your partner and son.

I know it’s not to do with me, but I will respond on their behalf because my partner isn’t good at that sort of thing, and my son isn’t here and I can’t get hold of him - he doesn’t currently have a smart phone so access to email, social media etc is sporadic and I usually wait for him to contact me. He won’t have £100 anyway to apply for contesting jurisdiction.

StillSkint

I had contacted BW several times to say my son no longer lives here - also returned their mail to sender when they continued to send a never ending stream of letters.

KeithP

StillSkint wrote: »

They are all issued 3rd May. They all arrived together today.

The following does not apply to your son's claim.

With a Claim Issue Date of 3rd May, you have until Wdnesday 22nd May to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 5th June 2019 to file your Defence.

That's a whole month away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the 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.

Of course, everywhere I have said 'you' or 'your' I mean the Defendant.

Coupon-mad

StillSkint wrote: »

They are all issued 3rd May. They all arrived together today.

My son does not have an address, as he is travelling around and staying in hostels.

I know it’s not to do with me, but I will respond on their behalf because my partner isn’t good at that sort of thing, and my son isn’t here and I can’t get hold of him - he doesn’t currently have a smart phone so access to email, social media etc is sporadic and I usually wait for him to contact me.

He won’t have £100 anyway to apply for contesting jurisdiction.

OK.

So re your partner you can do the research & typing but all in HIS name, and he signs & dates the defence once you are happy with it having read the advice & threads here, and having shown us the draft, first.

Re your son, if you can't even get hold of him then:

- take a photocopy of the claim, and keep it with a copy of your letter and PROOF OF POSTING the original back to the CCBC (a certificate of posting from the PO counter, not recorded delivery).

- State clearly that you are the resident at the address the claim has arrived at but this is not the correct address for service for (son's full name). State that the solicitors BW Legal have been informed on numerous occasions that (son's full name) is living abroad and has been since April 2018 and that this is NOT a valid address for service for him. He does not have an address as he is travelling around and staying in hostels but at the moment he is in xxxxxx Country but with sporadic access to email or even phone contact and not only is this service defective but you have no way to inform him or forward the claim form to him so this claim should be put in front of a CCB Judge to strike out.

Attach some sort of proof that he IS abroad (otherwise anyone could lie)! You need to convince the CCBC that the claim MUST be struck out.

Send a copy of all of the above by email to BW Legal so they can be in no doubt about defective service of this claim (in case they carry on and try to enforce a CCJ against your son in his absence they can't say they thought good service had been achieved).

StillSkint

First attempt at defence:



IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM Nos: xxxx, xxxx, xxxx

BETWEEN:

KBT CORNWALL LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-

STILLSKINTSPARTNER (Defendant)

________________________________________


I am the defendant and I deny any money owed to KBT Cornwall Ltd in respect of this claim.


1. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXXXXX, of which the defendant is the registered keeper, was photographed by a hand held digital camera or mobile phone by an Armtrac operative, parked at a visitor bay at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (the defendant’s home address). The defendant is reported to have contravened parking regulations for a visitor’s bay at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 24.12.17, 03.01.18 and 06.06.18.


2. BW Legal have issued these 3 claims (xxxx, xxxx, xxxx) separately from the County Court Business Centre, all dated on the same day (3rd May 2019); this is an abuse of process and an attempt to inflate costs/charges; the three claims should be consolidated into one claim.


3. The defendant admits to being the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question (XXXXXXX) on the dates the Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) were issued; however, the defendant denies that he was the driver on any of these occasions. This is relevant because the contract that KBT Cornwall Ltd is relying on for the basis of the claim, exists between them and the driver of the car on those dates.
The car is fully comprehensively insured, and anybody with fully comprehensive insurance is able to legally drive the car. The defendant often uses work vehicles; therefore the vehicle (XXXXXXX) is available at many times to other drivers. Other drivers who had access to the car on the stated dates are the defendant’s partner, her son and visitors to the defendant’s home who had travelled by public transport and wished to use the car locally. The defendant is under no obligation to name these drivers.




4. If KBT Cornwall Ltd wish to rely on ‘Keeper Liability’ and pursue the defendant as the Keeper for liability of the claim, they are required to adhere strictly to the Protection of Freedoms Act (‘POFA’) 2012, whereby "Notice To Keeper (‘NTK’)" letters must
1) Arrive within a certain timescale
2) Include mandatory information for The Keeper. If all the information is not present (As detailed in Schedule 4, Paragraphs 6, 8 and 9 of The POFA 2012) the NTK is invalid.

Upon researching, the defendant has reason to believe KBT Cornwall Ltd were non-compliant with the POFA 2012 on the dates of the PCNs in question, therefore they cannot evoke Keeper liability upon the defendant as a means of claim. If KBT Cornwall Ltd do not wish to evoke Keeper liability under POFA 2012, then they must provide evidence that the defendant was the driver.

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. The terms and conditions shown on the signage within the car park do not state that a PCN will be issued for staying over a 24 hour period, or returning within a 24 hours period if parking in a visitors bay (picture 1 and 2); information relating to visitors bays is not present in the general section of the signage (picture 3), and is not part of the ‘terms and conditions’ and therefore not legally binding.


7. The signs leading to and within the car park have the Armtrac logo, whereas the claim has been brought by KBT Cornwall Ltd. The defendant could therefore only form a contract with Armtrac Parking, not the claimant, by virtue of the signs being in the name of Armtrac.


8. The defendant has requested proof from KBT Cornwall of their contract with the landowner of xxxxxxxxx that authorises the issuing of penalty notices for vehicles parked on their car park/land. This information has not yet been provided; therefore it is presumed that the claimant is a stranger to any contract and has no legal capacity to issue a claim.


9. Further, it is denied that the car park signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person entering the car park in a vehicle and using a visitors bay. The signs above the visitor parking bays say that “maximum stay is 24 hours, and no return within 24 hours”, however they do not state that there is a £100 penalty for staying over 24 hours, or returning within 24 hours.


10. The large signs at the entrance to the car park, and placed around the car park only refer to contraventions by permit holders; there is no reference to visitor parking bays (which do not require permits), or penalties related to visitor parking bays.


11. Armtrac and KBT Cornwall Ltd are members of the International Parking Community (IPC). It states in the IPC code of Practice (Appendix 12) the following: “14.1 You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance and will be dealt with under the sanctions system as defined in schedule 2 to the Code.” As outlined in paragraph 8 and 9 above, it is determined that Armtrac are using misleading tactics by not informing drivers that by using the visitors bays that they will be subject to a £100 penalty if they exceed 24 hours, or return in 24 hours.


12. As stated in paragraph 1, the parking company Armtrac operatives use a handheld camera or a mobile phone to take pictures parking contraventions; there are no means of confirming the veracity and authenticity of the date/time stamp, as these details are easily changed by the operative within the device settings. The defendant recently had a conversation with an Armtrac operative working in the area who reported that Armtrac operatives receive £30 for each ticket they issue; this could provide a strong financial incentive to amend date/time settings of the mobile phone/digital camera to result in financial gain.


13. As stated in paragraph 8 of this defence, the claimant has thus far failed to provide 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.


14. 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 (plus £25 for Court fees), for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

15. Furthermore, KBT Cornwall Ltd are requesting interest on the claim from the defendant, however thus far they have not had any monetary outlay or loss, unless they have already paid the parking charge to the landowner, in which case the defendant would like evidence provided that such a sum has been paid to the landowner.


16. BW Legal have issued three separate claims on behalf of KBT Cornwall Ltd (xxxx, xxxx, xxxx) on the same day – 3rd May 2019; this is an abuse of process and an attempt to inflate costs/charges; the three claims should be consolidated into one claim.


17. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. In summary, it is the defendant's position that the claim is without merit, and has no real prospect of success; accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim, using its case management powers pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules 3.4.


I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name

Signature

Date