We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Urgent Country court Defence help needed
forumuser_ms
Posts: 8 Forumite
I need some urgent help with filing my defence.
The issue date for Country court claim is 30th May 2019. I've done AoS.
I thought the defence deadline of 28 days starts from the date AoS is done.
I realised I'm wrong after researching a bit on the forums. Can someone please confirm if deadline for my defence is 2nd July 4PM and I can email the signed and scanned pdf to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
I've read the sticky notes #2 on this forum and gone through some defences.
I'd really appreciate if someone can please check my defence and provide some inputs.
Most of the defence is copied from other defences, except for the highlighted part, which includes particulars.
My partner had lunch at a restaurant with her colleagues. She remembers entering the registration number, but thinks she could have jumbled two letters. I've emailed ZZPS on receiving a letter about the parking.
In The County Court
Claim No: XXXXXXX
Between
Civil Enforcement Ltd (Claimant)
-and-
XXXXXXX (Defendant)
____________
DEFENCE
____________
1. The Claim Form issued on 30th May 2019 by Civil Enforcement Ltd was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person. The claim does not have a valid signature and is not a statement of truth. It states that it has been issued by 'Civil Enforcement Limited' as the Claimant's Legal Representative. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by a person holding a senior position and state the position. If the party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth but in his own name and not that of his firm or employer.
2. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The defendant had lunch at the restaurant (claimed to be managed by the claimant) along with her colleagues. The defendant remembers entering their vehicle registration number, but thinks that two letters could have been jumbled unintentionally in the sunlight glare because of typographical error or because of the faded keypad/sticky keys at the restaurant. The defendant has proof of dining - credit card statement for the claimed violation date showing the name of restaurant as reference.
6. On receiving a letter from ZZPS Ltd about parking charge notice, defendant’s partner (on the instruction of defendant) has emailed them indicating that the defendant has entered the vehicle registration number and asked them to check if the letters were jumbled.
But, ZZPS Ltd has replied mentioning that they were instructed to pursue this outstanding parking charge notice on behalf of their client without responding to my point noted in the email. If the claimant intends to claim on the basis of letters being jumbled, this should be disregarded by the Court under the principle of 'De minimis non curat lex'.
7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.
8. The Claimant has failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4 (PoFA 2012). The driver of the vehicle has not been identified. The Defendant admits to being the registered keeper of the vehicle on the material date, but there is no evidence of who was driving. As the Claimant has not identified the driver, it cannot be assumed the keeper/driver are one and the same at the time of the supposed contravention (POFA 2012).
9. Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
9.1 CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.
9.2 Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.
9.3 The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.
9.4 Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.
9.5 According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.
9.6 The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.
9.7 Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It 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. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''
9.8 In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.
9.9 There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.
9.10 The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
Name
Signature
Date
The issue date for Country court claim is 30th May 2019. I've done AoS.
I thought the defence deadline of 28 days starts from the date AoS is done.
I realised I'm wrong after researching a bit on the forums. Can someone please confirm if deadline for my defence is 2nd July 4PM and I can email the signed and scanned pdf to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
I've read the sticky notes #2 on this forum and gone through some defences.
I'd really appreciate if someone can please check my defence and provide some inputs.
Most of the defence is copied from other defences, except for the highlighted part, which includes particulars.
My partner had lunch at a restaurant with her colleagues. She remembers entering the registration number, but thinks she could have jumbled two letters. I've emailed ZZPS on receiving a letter about the parking.
In The County Court
Claim No: XXXXXXX
Between
Civil Enforcement Ltd (Claimant)
-and-
XXXXXXX (Defendant)
____________
DEFENCE
____________
1. The Claim Form issued on 30th May 2019 by Civil Enforcement Ltd was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person. The claim does not have a valid signature and is not a statement of truth. It states that it has been issued by 'Civil Enforcement Limited' as the Claimant's Legal Representative. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by a person holding a senior position and state the position. If the party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth but in his own name and not that of his firm or employer.
2. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The defendant had lunch at the restaurant (claimed to be managed by the claimant) along with her colleagues. The defendant remembers entering their vehicle registration number, but thinks that two letters could have been jumbled unintentionally in the sunlight glare because of typographical error or because of the faded keypad/sticky keys at the restaurant. The defendant has proof of dining - credit card statement for the claimed violation date showing the name of restaurant as reference.
6. On receiving a letter from ZZPS Ltd about parking charge notice, defendant’s partner (on the instruction of defendant) has emailed them indicating that the defendant has entered the vehicle registration number and asked them to check if the letters were jumbled.
But, ZZPS Ltd has replied mentioning that they were instructed to pursue this outstanding parking charge notice on behalf of their client without responding to my point noted in the email. If the claimant intends to claim on the basis of letters being jumbled, this should be disregarded by the Court under the principle of 'De minimis non curat lex'.
7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.
8. The Claimant has failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4 (PoFA 2012). The driver of the vehicle has not been identified. The Defendant admits to being the registered keeper of the vehicle on the material date, but there is no evidence of who was driving. As the Claimant has not identified the driver, it cannot be assumed the keeper/driver are one and the same at the time of the supposed contravention (POFA 2012).
9. Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
9.1 CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.
9.2 Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.
9.3 The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.
9.4 Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.
9.5 According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.
9.6 The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.
9.7 Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It 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. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''
9.8 In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.
9.9 There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.
9.10 The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
Name
Signature
Date
0
Comments
-
I'm not as experienced as the others, so they will be along to clarify shortly, but I feel the points you have added are irrelevant and don't read easily.
I'm not a big fan of paragraph 5 and 6.
On a side note, I'm not sure if "templated" (para. 6) is a real word - you might want to check that.
What happened when you complained to the landowner/restaurant?0 -
You need to edit your post to remove details of who was driving
The ppcs monitor this forum and can use posts in your thread against you0 -
Your paragraphs 5 & 6 (and the second half of 4) that BigBoi points out are probably best saved for the Witness Statement (WS) and evidence stage. Providing you have mentioned signage in your defence, you can enlarge upon it at WS stage and provide evidence (photos) of the signs.
You should look out the term De Minimis Non Curat Lex which is Latin for "the law does not concern itself with trifles". Search the forum using De Minimis as your search term to see what others have done and to see what judges make of transposition of two digits.0 -
Have they added an extra £60 to which they are not entitled? If so read this
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal
and add it it your statement/
Also, why not get your MP on side as nine times out of ten these tickets are scams.
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, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.
Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but 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.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
I believe that you are correct with tomorrow's deadline0
-
Thank you guys for your advice.
I've edited my initial post now to remove the details, which may lead to identifying driver.
I've also removed previous points - 5 & 6 as advised by Le_Kirk.
I've added them initially as I thought the defendant cannot add any new evidence at WS stage, which wasn't listed in the defence statement. Can someone please clarify on this?
Le_Kirk, I've checked some of your replies for 'De Minimis'. You seem to have mentioned to include if it was keypad error like o instead of 0. In my case, I think my partner swapped two characters like 'BA' instead of 'AB' while entering registration number. Should this be left for the WS?0 -
I quite like 5 and 6 and think they should be there, for the reasons you said.
You need to add the 'defence ending' words I posted in beamerguy's Abuse of Process thread, as a secondary argument to attack the fake added 'costs'. Also read Johnersh's post on that same thread.
My suggested full ending is there BUT NEEDS PARAGRAPH NUMBERS...!
If you were not the driver you need to say you were not (don't name her). And add these facts:My partner had lunch at a restaurant with her colleagues. She remembers entering the registration number, but thinks she or the faded keypad/sticky keys, unclear in the sunlight glare, could have jumbled two letters.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Have you complained to the landowner/restaurant? It isn't too late for them to intervene.0
-
With a Claim Issue Date of 30th May, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 2nd July 2019 to file your Defence.
When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:-
Print your Defence.
- Sign it and date it.
- Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
- Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
- Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
- Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
- Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
- Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.
0 - Sign it and date it.
-
I am not going to go against the advice of Coupon-mad (she's far too experienced) so leave in 5 & 6 but sort out the tail end of 4. De minimis can relate to a 0 instead of o and could also relate to swapping two digits. Have you considered the fact that it might be the keypad that was in error, sticky buttons or similar. I've seen defences where the claimant is put to strict proof that the keypad was working on the day!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards