Court for tickets x 3 for parking at home address

The_Deep

You should also get your MP on side as nearly all residential car park claims are a scam.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. 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.

StillSkint

I have already complained to my MP as there is a real problem with parking companies in the area I live.

Le_Kirk

1. All paragraphs should be numbered.
2. In paragraph 2 of your point 4, you use evoke and it should be invoke.

Coupon-mad

Can I check you dealt with your son's one exactly as advised, all done?

And your husband knows he has to sign & date this defence and turn up to a hearing at your local court in due course in Summer/Autumn?

This needs to be the usual words we use, this is too brief:

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.

Search the forum for Two claims? abuse of process and copy the longer wording, changing it to 'three' rather than two.

StillSkint

Thanks for feedback, the paragraphs are numbered in word but did not carry over when cut and paste. Will make the amendments and paste it again.

Yes my sons done as advised, sent the court a copy of his one way flight itinerary when he left and his work visa from Australia house which is dated until 2020, as that is all the time evidence I could provide.

I guess the parking companies monitor these threads and this case is probably easily recognisable, would this be detrimental?

Coupon-mad

Yes my sons done as advised, sent the court a copy of his one way flight itinerary when he left and his work visa from Australia house which is dated until 2020, as that is all the time evidence I could provide.

Also send a copy by email to BW Legal and tell them the claim xxxxxxx against your son has not been served and the CCBC has been informed of this fact and that he lives out of jurisdiction. You need to tell them, to stop them trying to enforce the claim when they receive no defence.

I guess the parking companies monitor these threads and this case is probably easily recognisable, would this be detrimental?

No, don't worry, you are telling no lies here so it's all good to be open.

StillSkint

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


1. The court is invited to take note that the claimant has issued three claims, numbers xxxx, xxxxx, xxxx against the defendant on the same date (3rd May 2019), and with substantially identical particulars. It is submitted that this constitutes an abuse of process, making the defendant potentially liable for three instances of issues fees, solicitor costs, and hearing fees, and runs contrary to the overriding objective of Civil Procedure Rules 1.1, the disposal of cases justly and at proportionate cost. The court is invited to consolidate the claims to be determined at a single hearing, and to apply appropriate sanctions against the claimant.


2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXXXXXX, 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 XXXX (the defendant’s home address). The defendant is reported to have contravened parking regulations for a visitor’s bay at XXXX on 24.12.17, 03.01.18 and 06.06.18.


3. The defendant admits to being the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question (XXXXXXXX) 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.


4. 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 (XXXXXXXX) 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.


5. 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 invoke Keeper liability upon the defendant as a means of claim. If KBT Cornwall Ltd does not wish to invoke Keeper liability under POFA 2012, then they must provide evidence that the defendant was the driver.


6. 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.


7. 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.


8. 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.


9. The defendant has requested proof from KBT Cornwall Ltd of their contract with the landowner of XXXXXXXXXXX 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.


10. 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 (pictures 1 and 2).


11. 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 (picture 3).


12. 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 10 and 11 above, it is determined that Armtrac is 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.


13. As stated in paragraph 2 of this defence, the operatives of the parking company Armtrac use a handheld camera or a mobile phone to take photographs of 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 £10 for each ticket they issue; this could provide a strong financial incentive to amend date/time settings of the mobile phone/digital camera in order to result in financial gain.


14. As stated in paragraph 9 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.


15. 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.


16. 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.


17. 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.


18. 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

StillSkint

Is it also worth adding in a paragraph to the effect that as two of the alleged contraventions were very close together 24/12 and 03/01 to ask to see evidence that two separate applications to DVLA were made and that they did not retain data or use data obtained for one reason for something else? Is it correct that an application to DVLA has to be made for each parking contravention otherwise they requesting company are not complying with GDPR?

Coupon-mad

Yes that is correct, they can't use DVLA data for another parking event. I very much doubt they have done this wrong but you can add it and put them to strict proof.

Remove #16 and #17 which are not needed and interest isn't arguable like that.

Remove mention of pictures. You need to read the NEWBIES thread about 'what happens when' and go to read bargepole's Court Procedures thread, to understand when pictures & evidence are served.

Not yet, that is not how it works at CCBC central defence processing stage.

StillSkint

Will amend it and repost later when I am on my laptop so I can read the relevant posts - I am not going to send until i am sure it’s right.

I have opened a letter for my son from CCBC saying they have received his defence, I am presuming the letter I sent in counted as defence? He also received a letter from BW legal urging him to call them to settle before court, as did my partner (x3 letters).