County court letter

Gracious2

Hi All
Court letter from NCC (issued June 17) - Gladstone solicitor/ National Enforcement Parking. X3 Windscreen tickets (2015 -2016) - letters ignored and binned. Claim totalling £400 + court fee + solicitors. Can recall 1 ticket but not the other 2 - other half use the car as well and we were separated at the time and i was living at a different address.

DONE SO FAR...
Acknowledged letter.
SAR sent to NPE - still waiting...
Gone through some posts - drafted my defence. I would really appreciate if someone can look at it, please?

beamerguy

How much was each ticket for ?

Tell us the breakdown of their claim ?

Redx

Post the issue date from the top right of the claim form below

Also post the breakdown of the costs from that form too

Post the draft defence,ensuring you have added the abuse of process paragraphs by coupon mad posted in the thread by beamerguy, renumbering all paragraphs

The_Deep

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams 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, 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.

Coupon-mad

You can find a recent defence by searching the forum for a post I made including the words 'perfect defence'. It combines bargepole's concise defence with my longer attack on the £60 and £50 fake costs that Gladstones have tried to add.

Gracious2

issued date is June 17.

THE CLAIMANT CLAIM:
£70 per PCN, £60 per PCN contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £69.55 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8.00% per annum continuing at £0.09 per day.

I have drafted my defence using examples previous cases on here but was banned from posting it.. will make changes and post again.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: CXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

(Claimant)

-and-

(Defendant)

________________________________________
1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

1.1 The defendant admits being the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question (xxxx) on the dates the Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) were issued; but deny being the driver on any of these occasions. This is relevant because the contract National Parking Enforcement are relying on for the basis of the claim, exists between them and the driver of the car on those dates.
1.1.1 The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
1.1.2 If National Parking Enforcement wish to rely on ‘Keeper Liability’ and pursue myself as the Keeper for liability of the claim, they are required to adhere strictly to the Protection of Freedoms Act (‘POFA’) 2012, whereby "Notice To Keeper (‘NTK’)" letters must
1) Arrive within a certain timescale
2) Include mandatory information for The Keeper. If all the information is not present (As detailed in Schedule 4, Paragraphs 6, 8 and 9 of The POFA 2012) the NTK is invalid. It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.
2. The Claimant also stated in the Particulars of Claim that ‘the driver of the Vehicle agreed to pay the parking charge within 28 days of issue yet failed to do so’. However, the claimant has failed to provide evidence of that agreement and failed to identify who the driver that it is referring to.
3. 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.
3.1 Barrister Michael Henry Greenslade, an experienced previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, confirmed in 2015 that "It cannot be presumed that the Keeper of a vehicle is also the driver".
3.2 To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exists, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

4. The Particulars of Claim listed 3 separate dates in which the PCNs were issued, however it is not stated how there has been a breach of contract on any of these occasions, merely "The cause of action is a breach of contract for failing to adhere to the Terms and Conditions of entering private land". This does not allow the Defendant sufficient information upon which to submit a defence to.
4.1 Further, The Claimant has not provided evidence to The Defendant to substantiate the claim of a breach of contract. For example, photographic evidence that the driver had failed to display a pay and display ticket
5. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event hence incapable of binding the driver as the claimant failed to comply IPC Code of Practice ‘PART E Schedule 1 – Signage’.
5.1 The defendant notes that the Claimant changed Trade bodies from British Parking Association (‘BPA’) to International Parking Community (‘IPC’) on 01/01/2015 and thus evidence for signage must correspond to the material dates.

6. Another case, The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and The Regions v Holt RTR 309 (Divisional Court, 2000) ruled that the burden of proof was on The Secretary of State to prove that the defendant (Holt) was the driver on the date of the offence, and the burden was not discharged merely by showing that Holt was the keeper of the vehicle.

7. Upon researching, I have reason to believe NPE were none compliant with the POFA 2012 on the dates of the PCNs in question, therefore they cannot evoke Keeper liability upon myself as a means of claim. I wish to see copies of all documentation NPE claim to have sent to my address in respect to the afore mentioned PCNs, with proof of postage.
12. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has enough 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.

13. 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.
14. It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs or even their unlawful, fixed sum card surcharge for payments - and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add an extra sums and that those sums formed part of the permit/parking contract formed with the resident in the first instance.
15. This case can be easily distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes. Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.

16. In summary, the Claimant's disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety

KeithP

Gracious2 wrote: »

issued date is June 17.

With a Claim Issue Date of 17th June, you had until Monday 8th July to do the Acknowledgement of Service. I am going to assume you did the AoS by that date. Please confirm.

If you did the AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 22nd July 2019 to file your Defence.

That's just on week away. Loads of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. 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'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
   
7. 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.

Coupon-mad

Do you mean NPE in Norwich?

National Enforcement Parking

Is this TRUE, that you can honestly deny being the driver (as opposed to not knowing)?

but deny being the driver on any of these occasions.

Remove this, why do people think there is a written agreement (obviously not):

2. The Claimant also stated in the Particulars of Claim that ‘the driver of the Vehicle agreed to pay the parking charge within 28 days of issue yet failed to do so’. However, the claimant has failed to provide evidence of that agreement and failed to identify who the driver that it is referring to.

They mean the driver agreed to the terms, by the conduct of parking. No 'agreement'.

Change all the instances of ''I'' to 'The Defendant'.

Gracious2

Thank you for getting back to me.

Yes NPE - NORWICH

I will make amendments.

I can't recall driving on both occasions as partner used the car as well. Plus we were separated at the time and I was living/registered at a different address. So didn't see previous letters. So frustrating and honestly not sure if i stand a chance.

Should i remove 'deny driving on both occasions'?

Coupon-mad

Change it to:

The car was driven by more than one driver around these dates, so - in the absence of any driver's identity evidence from this Claimant - the Defendant cannot recall who was driving on both occasions. It may well have been the Defendant's partner who used the car as well, but we were separated at the time and the Defendant was living/registered at a different address, so did not know about any PCN or see any letters.

Egbert_Nobacon

Instead of 13 and 14 in the defence this excellent statement by Coupon-mad looks much better to me.


Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

The DJ stated:-
''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...''

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.