Preparation of Defence.

The_Deep

Is this for a single claim? If so £300 is far more than the Law allows for this sort of thing. The down market solicitors whom the PPCs engage know this, but, because they are solicitors, know that a lot of people will pay up.

It is in fact double charging and non claimable debt collectors' add ons. Imo, this is fraud, or, at the very least, improper conduct.

Were this to get to court and they won, the judge would be unlikely to award the claimant more than £175 - £200.

I urge you to report this grubby law firm to their regulatory body, the SRA.

https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/code/content.page

as I am sure they do not condone this conduct.r

Coupon-mad

mukach72 wrote: »

Can anyone explain what these are, please?

A scam, made up debt collector costs that were never incurred or paid.

See here - the bit about disproportionate and disingenuous costs:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75870562#Comment_75870562

I am VERY concerned about what defence you have, given your case is about overstays in a Supermarket car park.

We assume you have read the binding case of ParkingEye v Beavis that these firms rely on, which was a Supreme Court decision that Mr Beavis was liable in law, for (drumroll) a claim about an overstay in a retail car park.

How are you going to differentiate or 'distinguish' these charges from Beavis?

Which PPC and is this via Gladstones or BW Legal?

mukach72

The claim is for 4 PCNs, and the Claimant is Brittania Parking!. They were issued via ANPR when one (or both) drivers had access to the car, not the Registered keeper, who is my wife. We have lived at our current address for nearly 4 years but the PCNs where issued to our old address. We have the V5C to prove where the car is registered. We only found out in early March about the PCNS. So our two main concerns are;
1) we don't know who the driver was, who is responsible for the overstays although the two in question have been given details of the claim and
2) why the PCN's went to a previous address when we've not lived there for 4 years?
I intend to use these two for the basis of the defence.

Coupon-mad

Also email a SAR to Britannia's DPO (see their privacy page) asking for all data held, and the source of the address they used, was it the DVLA or if not, where.

And rectifying your address to ensure they never revert to the old address and erase it.

mukach72

We did an SAR in late March and received a reply in early April. The source of the address they used was the DVLA!!

Coupon-mad

Send an email to the subject access email for the DVLA (it's on here somewhere) and ask what data they gave out and when, and what address they held at the time for you.

mukach72

So, to sum up our case. 4 'overstays' in supermarket carpark by either of 2 drivers, not RK. Dated from August to December 2018. PCNs sent to old address. First contact at current address early March 2019, V5C sent of current address. Deadline of 4.00pm 17th June 2019 for submission of defence, heres my 1st draft. Your comments would be greatly appreciated.

In The County Court
Case number: XXXXXXXX
Claimant: Brittania Parking
Defendant: XXXXXXX
DEFENCE

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

2. The facts are that the alleged parking contraventions occurred between August 2018 and December 2018 respectively but the Defendant receive no notification until early March 2019. This is contrary to Schedule 4 paragraphs 8(5) or 9(5) of PoFA 2012 which state specific time limits for serving a Notice to Keeper. Non-compliance means the Defendant cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver.

3. The Defendant forwarded a copy of form V5C Registered Keeper document but received no response.
4. During the period of the alleged parking contraventions, two other persons had access to the vehicle in question but neither have come forward as driver. The Defendant has complied with his obligation under Paragraph 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 by telling the driver(s) that they are required to pay the parking charge which discharges the Defendant's liability for this claim.

5. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct.


6. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and the driver of the vehicle. This indicates that the Claimant has failed to identify the driver and thus 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. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

7. 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.

7.1. In addition to the PCN penalties, for which liability is denied, the Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported ‘initial legal costs' of £160.00 ‘estimated court fees’ of £60.00 and ‘contractual costs pursuant to the PCN Terms & Conditions’ of £160.00 which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant. This would be more than double recovery, being vague and disingenuous and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.

7.2. 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 is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

9. It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, and as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor the other, and create no certainty of contract or charge whatsoever.

10. The Defendant believes that the Claimant has not used due diligence before issuing court papers.
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.

I believe the facts stated in the defence are true,
Name
Signature

Coupon-mad

Brittania Parking

That's not the full name of the Claimant, and the word Britannia has one 't' and two letter 'n's.

The only thing that jumped out at me that's missing is a paragraph saying the signage is pants and distinguishing the case from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, in that regard (you will have to, because your case is too similar to Beavis unless you can draw distinctions like unclear, sparse signs).

mukach72

Thank you Coupon-m.!
So here goes my 2nd draft

In The County Court
Case number: XXXXXXXX
Claimant: Britannia Parking
Defendant: XXXXXXX
DEFENCE

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

2. The facts are that the alleged parking contraventions occurred between August 2018 and December 2018 respectively but the Defendant receive no notification until early March 2019. This is contrary to Schedule 4 paragraphs 8(5) or 9(5) of PoFA 2012 which state specific time limits for serving a Notice to Keeper. Non-compliance means the Defendant cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver.

3. The Defendant forwarded a copy of form V5C Registered Keeper document but received no response.

4. During the period of the alleged parking contraventions, two other persons had access to the vehicle in question but neither admitting to be driver. The Defendant has complied with his obligation under Paragraph 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 by telling the driver(s) that they are required to pay the parking charge which discharges the Defendant's liability for this claim.

5. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct.


6. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and the driver of the vehicle. This indicates that the Claimant has failed to identify the driver and thus 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. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

7. 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.

7.1. In addition to the PCN penalties, for which liability is denied, the Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported ‘initial legal costs' of £160.00 ‘estimated court fees’ of £60.00 and ‘contractual costs pursuant to the PCN Terms & Conditions’ of £160.00 which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant. This would be more than double recovery, being vague and disingenuous and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.

7.2. 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 is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

9. It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, and as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor the other, and create no certainty of contract or charge whatsoever.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. The Defendant believes that the Claimant has not used due diligence before issuing court papers.

13. 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.


I believe the facts stated in the defence are true,
Name
Signature

nosferatu1001

3) why does this matter? What did forwarding the V5 prove or disprove that is relevant?