Car broke down and i have been issued with a County Court Claim

JamesErricson

Hello all,


I parked in a local car park with ANPR whilst i went to do some shopping, when I returned to my car and tried to start the car it did not work, i had to call out a mechanic to jump start the car and return home this took around 3 hours overstaying the free 75 min parking, around a week or so later i received a parking charge notice from Civil Enforcement Limited for a breach of terms & conditions, i appealed to them directly but did not submit evidence in time for them to throw the claim out as I did not have a receipt form the mechanic at the time, i then appealed to POPLA telling them about how my car broke down and i was unable to move it meaning i overstayed the free 75 min but still they rejected my appeal.


I then ignored all the correspondence from Civil enforcement, ZPSS dept collection, and QDR solicitors for the next year and have now just received a N1SDT from from the County court Business centre. I have 2 weeks to respond to with a defense.


I am genuinely innocent and my car had broken down, in my defense that I need to submit should i highlight this as I have no clue on what to write, as most threads on here seem to deal with issues regarding signage and incorrect pre- action by CEL.




Any help would be greatly appreciated

Half_way

This is known as frustration of contract.

Who's car park was this??

Quentin

Throughout here you are advised never to reveal who was driving or your identity


If you have used your real name as your forum name then get MSE to change it to something anonymous, and edit your post to remove details of who was driving


The ppcs monitor this forum and can use posts in your thread against you in Court

JamesErricson

Was a local cash & carry type supermarket, not one of the big chain supermarkets, in hindsight I should have told them that my vehicle had broken down and not to give me a ticket but unfortunately I did not.

Coupon-mad

have now just received a N1SDT from from the County court Business centre. I have 2 weeks to respond to with a defense.

A defence.

And you DO NOT only have 14 days. Please tell us the issue date of the N1 form?

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Half_way

JamesErricson wrote: »

Was a local cash & carry type supermarket, not one of the big chain supermarkets, in hindsight I should have told them that my vehicle had broken down and not to give me a ticket but unfortunately I did not.

Its still not too late, without the permission of the principal/landowner the parking company can not proceed against you.
If you can get a statement form the landowner stating they do not support the parking company proceeding through court, then the PPC is stuffed.
However if you get such a statement then you MUST tell the PPC and invite them to cease proceedings.
if the parking company continues you have a cuase to claim unreasonable action

JamesErricson

The issue date of the claim form was the 17th of July 2019

KeithP

JamesErricson wrote: »

The issue date of the claim form was the 17th of July 2019

With a Claim Issue Date of 17th July, you have until Monday 5th August to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 19th August 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect 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.

JamesErricson

Hi all i have prepared my defence as follows


In the County Court Business Centre c
Between
Civil Enforcement Limited V xxxx

Claim No:xxxx

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

2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The particulars of the claim, state the legal basis is brought against the Defendant for ‘breach of terms of parking’ by the driver. 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 when parking at xxxxx

3. The incident in question has been brought to the attention of the claimant where it was clearly explained that on the 00/00/0000 the vehicle on which the parking charge notice was administered was broken down and could not be moved without the aid of a mechanic, upon returning to the vehicle with the mechanic and fixing the issue which prevented the vehicle from being moved the defendant was issued with a parking ticket which was appealed against to the claimant, who rejected the claims.

4. The claimant requested proof at the time of a breakdown report from a mechanic to be forwarded within 14 days, however they did not provide any address to which correspondence could be forwarded such as an email address

5. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle. ‘Keeper liability’ under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) is dependent upon full compliance with that Act. It is submitted that the Claimant’s Parking Charge Notice and/or Notice to Keeper failed to comply with the statutory wording and/or deadlines set by the POFA. Any non-compliance voids any right to ‘keeper liability’.

6. Futhermore the claimant has confirmed that they are not relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and pursuing me as the “Registered Keeper”, liability can not be transferred to the “Registered Keeper” and they can only pursue the “Driver”, as the driver has not been identified there should be no grounds to pursue me as the “Registered Keeper”, and would suggest that this case is withdrawn with immediate effect.


7. The Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land under the correct address, 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 £99.75, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

9. 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

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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 by Judge Tailor and DJ Grand was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing and stating that: ''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...''

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

Statement of Truth:

I confirm that the contents of this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.



Could someone have a read over this and see if this is a good enough defense

Redx

There is no S in DEFENCE

Write the word DEFENCE above point 1)

It certainly looks ok on a skim read