Court for tickets x 3 for parking at home address

KeithP

Remember, the Defence should be emailed as describe in post #9 above.

His proposed method of adding a signature is a good alternative.

StillSkint

The reason I didn’t send it at the time I was on the phone was that i wanted to check back here first that it’s feasible for him to still submit a defence. He doesn’t really want a ccj although not overly bothered as not intending to come back any time soon, but would prefer not o give them the easy option:

Coupon-mad

Perfect, make sure he adds a paragraph at the end before the statement of truth, about where he lives, that he is outside jurisdiction and the Claimant is aware of that already, and his travel if he has to attend will include flights from Sydney.

StillSkint

He is more tech savvy than me, I’m sure he will work it out and get it sent off tomorrow, he’s going to go down there first thing so 10pm ish our time so will be sent off tonight.

StillSkint

Oh I wonder why today we had a letter when the deadline for defence is tomorrow - maybe hoping for a default ccj?

Defence submitted:

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 a claim to the address of the defendant's mother xxxxxxxxx which has not been the defendant's residence since 17.04.18. The defendant has not lived in the UK since 17.04.18 when he left to travel Australia. The defendant does not have an address in Australia as he is transient and residing in backpacker hostels across Australia. The defendant's mother sent the claim Fxxxxxx back to the county court business centre, as she was unable to contact the defendant at that time. The defendant is now aware of the claim after telephone contact with his mother last week, however the defendant's mother did not have the full details to share as had sent the claim back to the County Court Business Centre. BW Legal have been made aware several times prior to and following the claim that the defendant does not reside in the UK, but have indicated they are going ahead with the claim,. The defendant opinnes that BW Legal are hoping to gain a CCJ by default in the knowledge that the defendant is not reliably contactable, despite the defendant being outside the jurisdiction of the court. Therefore the defendant wishes to
defend the claim in full, and will be seeking costs for travel back to the UK to defend this claim from KBT Cornwall Ltd if successful. The defendant wishes to reiterate that this claim was not properly served, and that the County Court Business Centre, BW Legal and KBT Cornwall Limited are well aware of this fact.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration N....., 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 then home address). The defendant is reported to have contravened parking regulations for a visitor’s bay at Xxx on a date that the defendant does not have the details of, due to not having had sight of the claim.

3. The defendant admits to being the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question (N......) on the alleged dates the Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) were issued as this was prior to his departure to Australia on 17.04.19 and the car was sold after this date; however, the defendant denies that he was the driver on any of these occasions. Without knowing the date of the PCN (due to the claim not being served properly) the defendant is wholly unable to state reliably whether he was driving the car or not on this date. 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 was fully comprehensively insured with the defendant's mother as a named driver, and anybody with fully comprehensive insurance was able to legally drive the car. The vehicle (N....) was available at many times to other drivers. Other drivers who had access to the car prior to 17.04.19 are the defendant’s mother's partner, and several friends of the defendant visiting the defendant’s home who wished to borrow the car. 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, and the fact that the defendant has not had sight of the claim due to it not being served correctly, 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; information relating to visitors bays is not present in the general section of the signage, and is not part of the ‘terms and conditions’ and therefore not legally binding. I have pictures of the signage, although this will be visible in the claimant's evidence – at no point is there any mention of a £100 penalty for parking in a visitor's bay over the specified time, indeed there is no mention of a penalty at all relating to visitor bays.

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's mother's partner has requested proof from KBT Cornwall Ltd of their contract with the landowner of Xxxxxx 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. 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.

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 at all to visitor parking bays (which do not require permits), or penalties mentioned 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's mother's partner 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. 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. 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

Coupon-mad

The date needed to be consistent, as it's shown several times (wrongly) as 17.04.19.

But if it's been emailed already then that's the main thing.

StillSkint

Oh well, he was in in a hurry to not be outside the defence window - 4 weeks from date of claim is tomorrow - is it worth him re doing and submitting it as a revised document - is there only one chance to submit a defence?

Coupon-mad

There is only one chance. It's OK, he can cover the date & details more at WS stage.

KeithP

StillSkint wrote: »

Oh I wonder why today we had a letter when the deadline for defence is tomorrow...

StillSkint wrote: »

Oh well, he was in in a hurry to not be outside the defence window - 4 weeks from date of claim is tomorrow ...

You are mistaken.

What's the significance of '4 weeks from date of claim is tomorrow'?

In post #9 above I stated:

...you have until 4pm on Wednesday 5th June 2019 to file your Defence.

StillSkint

Because somewhere in all the stuff we have had there was something they said he had four weeks from the issue of claim to file a defence - 3rd May plus four weeks is 31st May.
Sorry if we had it wrong but at least it’s been sent while he has access to Internet.