Defence assistance

Readytowin

Hi all,

I hope you can help, I've left this a little late but as I've been out of the country I've not had much time to sort this out.

A brief overview:

- National Car Parks Ltd, vehicle arrived on car park, left after 14 minutes, presume that this was due to not finding a space, unknown who the driver was, could have been registered keeper (me) but could also have been someone else who uses the vehicle occasionally, unknown now as the offence date was December 2018
- Letters received from NCP with the PCN were ignored, BW Legal have now issued to court
- SAR was requested on 15/06 from BW Legal as I now have none of the original letters sent, also due to being out of the country dont have ability to revisit the location to take pictures of the signs, but have some distant visibility of them on Google maps
- Issue date of Claim Form is 05/06/19
- AOS has been completed online
- Now trying to write a sufficient defence, which I think needs to be done by next week

Please let me know any questions about the situation that I havent covered, and let me know your thoughts on the defence I've created by going through the stickys over the last week? My main concern is claiming that I know that the vehicle wasnt parked when I claim that I dont know who the driver was? Appreciate your help anyway:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

NATIONAL CAR PARKS LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXX (Defendant)

________________________________________
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 vehicle, registration XXXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was present but not parked on the material date in the car park allocated to Company National Car Parks Limited at XXXXXXXX. Due to the tightly spaced nature of the car park, other vehicles were stuck and had to manoeuvre themselves out of the way, through a large line of traffic already waiting to arrive, in order for other vehicles to leave their spaces. No space was found by the driver of the vehicle XXXXXX on the day, so after waiting for some time they chose to leave without finding a space.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that it is in relation to a parking contravention, where there is no evidence that the vehicle was parked in the car park at all – only that it entered the car park then left 14 minutes later.

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. The terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

6. The terms on the Claimant's website under section 5.4 state:
“By parking your vehicle in the Car Park you consent to us capturing, using and processing your VRM and personal details via CCTV and ANPR for enforcement purposes, to calculate the relevant parking tariff (if applicable) and to recover any outstanding Parking Charge. This includes our right to request and obtain the details of a vehicle’s registered keeper from the DVLA.”
As the driver did not park, this would therefore not fall under the terms and conditions of which the Claimant states.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary 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.

8. 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.

9. Under the British Parking Association Code of Practice, Version 7, Section 13, 13.1, states that drivers must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into a ‘parking contract’. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, they must be provided with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by a parking contract. The vehicle was present at the location for under 15 minutes and did not park – this time was taken by the vehicle searching for a space, waiting for others to leave.

10. 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

Redx

If they added spurious costs to the claim, add the numerous paragraphs about abuse of process by DJ Grand as seen in a few defences on here this week and renumber the paragraphs, which will double the length of the defence

beamerguy

And as it is BWLegal who recently were whooped by DJ Taylor in
Southampton for ABUSE OF PROCESS, you follow the lead

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

Readytowin

Thanks so much for the quick replies, I'm not sure what spurious costs would exactly be, the original charge was 100, now 242.24 due to additional unknown 60, plus interest which they say is pursuant to section 69 of the country courts act, and then 25 court fees, 50 legal costs

Readytowin

Revised, I have added the abuse of process part to section 8 - or do you think it should have its own section?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

NATIONAL CAR PARKS LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXX (Defendant)

________________________________________
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 vehicle, registration XXXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was present but not parked on the material date in the car park allocated to Company National Car Parks Limited at XXXXXXXX. Due to the tightly spaced nature of the car park, other vehicles were stuck and had to manoeuvre themselves out of the way, through a large line of traffic already waiting to arrive, in order for other vehicles to leave their spaces. No space was found by the driver of the vehicle XXXXXX on the day, so after waiting for some time they chose to leave without finding a space.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that it is in relation to a parking contravention, where there is no evidence that the vehicle was parked in the car park at all – only that it entered the car park then left 14 minutes later.

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. The terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

6. The terms on the Claimant's website under section 5.4 state:
“By parking your vehicle in the Car Park you consent to us capturing, using and processing your VRM and personal details via CCTV and ANPR for enforcement purposes, to calculate the relevant parking tariff (if applicable) and to recover any outstanding Parking Charge. This includes our right to request and obtain the details of a vehicle’s registered keeper from the DVLA.”
As the driver did not park, this would therefore not fall under the terms and conditions of which the Claimant states.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary 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.

8. 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. This is also noted in recent claim number heard by District Judge Taylor in Southampton Court, 10th June 2019. It is noted that this is an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.

9. Under the British Parking Association Code of Practice, Version 7, Section 13, 13.1, states that drivers must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into a ‘parking contract’. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, they must be provided with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by a parking contract. The vehicle was present at the location for under 15 minutes and did not park – this time was taken by the vehicle searching for a space, waiting for others to leave.

10. 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

beamerguy

You missed the claim number F0DP201T

Make it easy for a judge to locate

Should be

£100 for ticket
£25 court fee
£50 legal costs
maybe a small amount of interest

Any further add-on is a scam and Abuse of Process

Redx

no , not good enough

you want the full post by Coupon-Mad adding , several paragraphs in total, and renumber accordingly

if it hasnt got the name of DJ GRAND in your draft (as well as Judge Taylor), its not good enough


a Parking Eye court claim would be about £175 in total , no extra £60 as debt collector costs or solicitor costs

Readytowin

I realise I missed out the claim number from section 8 so I have added it,

Thoughts on the rest of it? Should I cut out the detail about the vehicle driving around looking for a space before leaving, if I dont know who the driver was?

Readytowin

Ok great - sounds like the additional 60 is going to get this case closed then!

Sorry my PC is not keeping up with the replies - I will add something about DJ Grand and come back with a revision

Redx

you willl have about 18 paragraphs when the DJ GRAND total section on spurious costs is added

beamerguy

Redx wrote: »

no , not good enough

you want the full post by Coupon-Mad adding , several paragraphs in total, and renumber accordingly

if it hasnt got the name of DJ GRAND in your draft (as well as Judge Taylor), its not good enough


a Parking Eye court claim would be about £175 in total , no extra £60 as debt collector costs or solicitor costs

On my first post in the thread ABUSE OF PROCESS, I have added this

PLEASE READ POST #14 ON THIS THREAD BY COUPON-MAD

It is vital that a judge fully understands about ABUSE OF PROCESS