My defence discloses no reasonable grounds [CPR 3.4]

UberThere

Hi Guys,

Thank you all for the valuable info so far, I have been reading up the last few months and have come to a point where I have a question.

I have a claim from BW Legal, and have got the point for receiving my Directions Questionnaire. However I am yet to request an SAR, is it too late at this point? Should I get it anyway?

Thanks in advance

Coupon-mad

Never too late to send a SAR. People often do them during court claims.

What did your defence say exactly - and what sort of car park, and which PPC?

Le_Kirk

It's too late to use in your defence but maybe it will be useful for your witness statement. Always handy to know what the PPC are alleging is the issue. You should have had all this in the POC but I would suggest you submit a SAR as soon as you like.

The_Deep

They are obviously trying to scam you so complain to your MP.

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.

UberThere

Hi Guys,

I files my defence and received a letter back from the court, I cant seem to post the image of the letter, so you should be able to copy and paste the link below, adding a 'h' to the web address, i.e https

ttps://ibb.co/GRnJJtq

I'm not sure where to go with this now, or if its time to pay up the amount to the parking company. Any advice would be appreciated.

This was my original defence:

How much of the claim do you dispute?
I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.

Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it?
No, for other reasons.

Defence
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in
the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in
question. The particulars of the claim, state the legal basis is
brought against the Defendant for ‘breach of the terms and
conditions of the car park’ by the driver. 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 when parking at Milton Keynes – Avebury car park.

2.1. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was
any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice
('PCN')'.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant; was the
registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle; [REG NUMBER]. These
assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a
Cause of Action and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such,
the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with
Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.

4. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle. ‘Keeper
liability’ under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
(“the POFA”) is dependent upon full compliance with that Act. It
is submitted that the Claimant’s Parking Charge Notice and/or
Notice to Keeper failed to comply with the statutory wording
and/or deadlines set by the POFA. Any non-compliance voids any
right to ‘keeper liability’.

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the
claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear
manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person
reading them.

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance that it
has sufficient proprietary interest in the land under the correct
address, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the
landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment
by means of litigation.

7. In addition to the original PCN penalty, for which liability is
denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the
Claim by adding purported added 'costs' of £60. Not only are such
costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that
the Claimant has not incurred legal costs.

8. The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis
[2015] UKSC 67. However, with no 'legitimate interest' excuse for
charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this
Claimant is fully aware that their claim is reduced to an
unrecoverable penalty and must fail.

9. The Claimant may try to rely on Combined Parking Solutions Ltd
v AJH Films Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1453. However the vehicle is not
registered to the Defendant as a company vehicle and there is no
Employer liability holding the Defendant liable for the actions of
the Driver.

10. The Claimant may try to rely on Elliot Vs Loake [1982] Crim LR
36. However a crucial part of the case was that forensic evidence
showed that the appellant lied about not being the driver of the
vehicle and this is a Criminal Case that does not bear any weight
in the Small Claims Court.

11. 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.

Coupon-mad

https://ibb.co/GRnJJtq

I'm not sure where to go with this now

Why would you roll over and let them have about £250 they are not entitled to?

The Order TELLS you what you are allowed to do, so you must do this well (read EXACTLY what the Order is saying at #2) and show us your draft response.

You need to do exactly what it says in #2, making sure the Judge receives it from you in good time.

What is the date of the order?

Were you driving, did you pay or overstay or what, and when was the PCN issued (month/year) and was that PCN issued as a result of an ANPR camera or a windscreen PCN by someone on foot, and was the NTK POFA compliant (look at POFA 9(2)f)?

Your defence had two or three winning grounds and certainly should not be struck out, so IMHO the Judge is deluded.

UberThere

The date of the order is 4 July 2019.

I did park at the car park, and I did pay for the parking. I believe I put the registration number in wrong by one letter, as thats the only thing that could have gone wrong.

The PCN was issued July 2017.

I tried to search the forum for instances like these and wasn't able to find anything, only CPR 3.4 the other way, against the claimant.

What do i need to do, just action number 2. i.e write to the court with what i've said here, and then see what happens next? Sorry to sound dumb, this is a bit of a first for me.

Thanks

waamo

You need to do exactly what it says. File a defence with the court that answers the questions the court has asked. You also need to send copies to the claimant.

I see no reason why you can't amend your original defence if you so wish.

bargepole

I think the reason it was struck out, is that it discloses no facts whatsoever about the incident that gave rise to the PCN. It is a purely 'technical' defence on points of law.

Many Judges do not like that, they like to know the facts of the case first, then the legal arguments can be applied to the facts.

Coupon-mad

Show us your new draft amended defence and DO NOT miss the strict deadline.

UberThere

Hi Guys,

I have an update on this one, and wanted to reach out for advice. I have now received my hearing letter which will be held in December, and have point 6 in the letter to address for now

6) Each party must deliver to the other party and to the court office copies of all documents on which that party intends to rely at the hearing no later than 4pm x November 2019

- Which documents should I prepare for this?
- Also are there any issues representing myself?

The claimant, Britania Parking have until mid November to pay the court fee / 'file a properly completed application', my presumption is that they will do this, and I should prepare for the hearing in December.

Thanks in advance