Court for tickets x 3 for parking at home address

Coupon-mad

The letter you sent was not a defence.

I would reply to that letter and attach a copy of what your provided again, and ask the CCBC to put the evidence before one of the Judges they have access to, and strike the claim out as not properly served/out of jurisdiction, as the Defendant is uncontactable at the moment (explain why again) and cannot reply to this claim and this is not his 'address for service'. State that the claim WAS NOT PROPERLY SERVED.

You could always email this rather than post.

I KNOW you've already done it. The point of doing this again, is that it seems the CCBC didn't understand it. Try again, you need to protect your son from this crap!

StillSkint

Decided not to go with the GDPR as wasn't sure how to word it, and will see what the SAR shows.


Third / ?Final attempt at defence:

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.


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.


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. 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

Coupon-mad

That defence for your OH to sign looks fine to me.

Just your son's one now, needs you to be pushy till a CCBC Judge actually looks at what you've sent (do it twice as I said, you can't assume all will be OK - copy in BW Legal as well to the email you now send about your son's one again).

StillSkint

Ok, will email it later - will keep this thread updated re progress.
Thanks for your help.

StillSkint

And it continues ....

Today a letter arrived addressed for my son, but was clearly written to both him and me, it states that his claim cannot be defended by a third party (me) unless I go through the court to be deemed a “litigant friend”, they are aware my son is not in the uk and have passed the correspondence to the relevant department but if he does not defend it the claimant may be awarded the claim in his absence.
I have again emailed them a copy of the Australia house visa, told them that I don’t wish to defend it as a litigant friend, and put in bold capitals that the claim has not been properly served and should be put before a judge to be struck out.

Coupon-mad

Good, I knew this would not be easy.

StillSkint

Email today from CCBC:

“Good Afternoon,
Thank you for your email.

Please be advised the court file can be noted that your son no longer lives at the address, however it is not the court taking action against your son it is BW Legal.

No details of this email have been forwarded to BW Legal as requested. I would advise the court cannot strike a claim out without an application being filed by the relevant party i.e. your son. Should an application not be filed the claimants can continue with the claim. “

Which kind of misses the point that as the claim has not been served properly my son can’t file anything as he doesn’t even know about the claim...

Coupon-mad

Would a CCJ be an issue for your son, as he is abroad (is he there for years)?

StillSkint

Well not really, he’s not likely to be back any time soon however the amount is inflated to £245 instead of the maximum payable of £100 if not defended isn’t it?

They are highly unlikely to recover any money from him even if they do get a ccj.

Coupon-mad

Then ignore it and keep evidence that you told BW Legal as well as the courts that their claim had not been properly served. If they get a judgment in default, so what really.