County Court claim form

Le_Kirk

PPCs and solicitors will not put a case on hold unless you tell them that "whilst you dispute there is any debt, you are taking debt advice and require them to halt their process for 30 days." Search the forum, using debt advice as your search term to see what others have done and, if you search using those words and Coupon-mad as a use name, you will find the proper civil procedure rules (CPR) to quote.

tboo

Disgruntled_parker wrote: »

With regards to the SAR. The defendant has just sent a PDF copy to the DPO at UKCPM however, having read though the guidance in the NEWBIES section it suggests the defendant sends a letter to Gladstone also; Requesting restriction of data processing and the case to be put 'on hold'. Is this relevant in this case as it is already at the County Court stage

The newbie thread suggests an SAR if you get a Letter of Claim' or' Letter Before Claim' (LBC) which may put the case on hold


As you say this is a court claim so putting it on hold is out of the question


However it doesn't mean you can't send an SAR to UKCPM but it will take days to arrive so don't rely on it at this stage

Disgruntled_parker

The defendant has just spent the day reading through numerous defences on a number of forums. In the majority of cases they are subject to the defendant being photoed leaving and entering the car park.

In all of those cases it was suggested to form a defence based on a grace period for both leaving and entering the car park.

In this case it's hard to find a reference to a valid defence other than the part referring to 'Abuse of Process' however, this only covers additional charges. Any grace period would be quashed as the defendant was 16 mins late not the permissible 10.

Any steer would be appreciated

Thanks

Umkomaas

From the PPC's photos of the ticket on the dashboard, is the time of the ticket purchase shown (as distinct from the ANPR time of entry to the car park shown on the NtK)?

Disgruntled_parker

there was no ANPR just a ticket machine. The photo's they have supplied as evidence are of the ticket on the dashboard. embossed on the top right hand corner of the photo is the time the photo was taken. The time between ticket expiring and photo taken is 16 min.

Disgruntled_parker

Does anyone know if there are grounds for defence with regards to time synchronisation of a pay and display ticket machine, and the time set on a camera taking the picture of an expired ticket. I believe it feasible that there may be a discrepancy between the two times. There have been numerous occasions when i've bought a ticket and the time printed on it is different to that on my watch.

Redx

yes it has been mentioned numerous times in other threads and posts

Disgruntled_parker

Thanks to those that have offered guidance with this case so far.

When you have time can you please read through my defence below to see if I need to add anything etc:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle, registration XXXX at the time of the alleged incident.

3. The particulars of the claim state that the Defendant XXXX; was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle XXXX. 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. 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.

4. 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.

5. Further and in the alternative, evidence supplied from the images is insufficient to identify the registered keeper of registration XXXX, as no VRM is visible. In addition the time printed on the photos does not make reference to any pay and display machine from which the parking ticket may have been issued. The time therefore printed on the images supplied is considered irrelevant and unrelated to a breach in any alleged contract.

6. 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 parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

7. 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, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. A recent case Ref: F0DP201T presided by District Judge Taylor in Southampton Court, 10th June 2019, ruled that the claim is struck out as an Abuse of Process.

8. 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 contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Le_Kirk

Your point 3 and point 5 seem to contradict each other in that first it doesn't say what the cause of action is and then goes on to talk about the PDT (Pay and Display Terminal). I think in order not to confuse the judge (and me!) you should explain what you mean in point 5 as, being a stand-alone point without context it is confusing.

Also search for abuse of process in Search this Forum to assist you in your point 7. A recent case was thrown out in Southampton because the judge considered asking for the extra £60 was an abuse of process. Or use This Link

Disgruntled_parker

Thanks for your response. The original defence has just been updated. In a nut shell I have just looked back at the second letter they sent the defendant and the two photos they have supplied as evidence shows a pic of the parking ticket, and one of the ticket at distance. There is no indication what so ever that this is the defendants car.

The defendant has sent a SAR to the DPO however, I don't expect to receive this info back before a court hearing, so I don't know if they have other pictures. With this in mind I want to add the part about potential time differences between machine and camera.

With regards to point 7 i'm not sure I can add any more detail than is actually there.