Real or fake N1 Form - No POC?

nosferatu1001

Your defence shoudl be written!
Youve had 2 weeks so far since your last post. You cannot leave this so late.

How is a defence baffling? There are SEVENTEEN for you to review and understand on the newbies thread, post 2. You MUST read and digest them , and use the info in this thread.

I see not much value in a letter to the landoner unless you have a response saying "yeah we hate this, we want this cancelled" - in which case you have a defence of no commercial justificaiton and no landowner authority.

GetSmarterVictoria

Umkomaas wrote: »

Make reference to the fact that you are seeking landowner evidence (not yet received), but the actual response (if you get it) is only relevant to the Witness Statement (a couple of months away) which should incorporate any and all evidence.


Please note ‘defence’. We’re not in the USA.

Have you read the concise defence example put together by legally qualified poster bargepole , or the 17 linked defences covering most types of parking scenarios (find one closest to your circumstances and adapt to suit), which are all contained in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2?

Thank you for your reply! Since your response I have actually had an email from the land owners property manager. It states:

"We are the current acting agents for the property and the owners have requested that we respond on their behalf.

The car park at the rear of the property XXX is currently under contract with a car park management company to control the illegal parking and issue fines to trespassers, who are parking without a permit.

Should you have been given permission to park in one of 'XXX' spaces when arriving at the property XXX should have contacted us or the owners to provide you with a parking permit for the time you was at the property. We nor the owners have any request for parking permit on the day of 24 November 2018, therefore a ticket was issued for the parking contravention. In any case should you have parked in one of the 'XXX.' spaces a ticket would have rightfully been issued.

There are multiple signs in the car park warning of illegal parking, resulting in fines and potential legal action. When a contravention occurs the owners of the vehicle should receive an automated ticket via the post an example is attached for your information.

From here matters are handled by the car park management company. In certain cases we have a two week window when a ticket is issued to request a cancellation of a ticket from the car park management company, such as when a permit wasn't issued in time or fault with the system. I didn't get a PCN so didn't get the opportunity to do this!

However in your case it is sometime ago, we are also not sure that had permission to park or if you parked in the correct spaces. Unfortunately, now, any request for cancellation or reduction of fine from us would be ignored, we can only propose you contact the car park management company for some leniency as from your letter we assume you never received the "ticket".

We hope you can resolve the matter with the 'car park management company' satisfactorily soon, I believe they try to direct you to contact appeals via the ce-service website :www.ce-service.co.uk"

I'm gathering at N1 stage there's now no point in appealing to CEL?

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Your defence shoudl be written!
Youve had 2 weeks so far since your last post. You cannot leave this so late.

How is a defence baffling? There are SEVENTEEN for you to review and understand on the newbies thread, post 2. You MUST read and digest them , and use the info in this thread.
.

Apologies, I should have been more concise, I have been working on a defence by adding paragraphs that I feel are relevant to me (based on bargepole's concise defence).

I'm just having trouble because - as I have received nothing prior to the claim form, I can't use the costs paragraphs stating the original notice to keeper total...as I don't have one. Costs just state:
£170 debt and damages + interest totalling £181.18
£25.00 Court fee
£50.00 Legal rep costs
£256.18 total.

My skeleton defence so far reads:

_______________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of 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.

2. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was 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.

3. As the PCN referenced in the claim (not received) was almost a year ago the defendant cannot ascertain who the driver was on the day in question and the defendant states that there was more than one person insured on the car at the time.

4. 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, which in this case was not received. The debt plus damages is £181.18 (before costs), for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

5. 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.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Name XXX
Signature XXX
Date XXX

Obviously I'm aware that I have a lot to add but with my case I'm not sure exactly what there is to add! It's a work in progress. Any thoughts however would be incredibly appreciated!

Umkomaas

The car park at the rear of the property XXX is currently under contract with a car park management company to control the illegal parking and issue fines to trespassers,

You’ve done absolutely nothing ‘illegal’. Ask them which laws you have broken.

Only certain bodies are allowed to issue fines. They do not include private parking companies.

A claim for ‘trespass’ rests exclusively with the landowner. A third party has no locus in an alleged trespass case.

Should you have been given permission to park in one of 'XXX' spaces when arriving at the property XXX should have contacted us or the owners to provide you with a parking permit for the time you was at the property.

Are contact details shown on the signage?

If that quote is verbatim ’a parking permit for the time you was at the property.‘, it’s appalling English!

Redx

Add abuse of process due to those figures above

The original PCN charge would not have been more than £100 , plus filing fee and court fee , typically £175 not £256.18

SAR the claimant to their DPO for all the documents and pictures and data about you and your vehicle , attaching a copy of the claim form as proof of I D

That landowner or MA. letter has many errors

These are not fines

It's not illegal to park there

Only the landowner can sue for trespass , which they are not doing

As above , their English is appalling , as is their knowledge about this topic

GetSmarterVictoria

Redx wrote: »

Add abuse of process due to those figures above

The original PCN charge would not have been more than £100 , plus filing fee and court fee , typically £175 not £256.18

SAR the claimant to their DPO for all the documents and pictures and data about you and your vehicle , attaching a copy of the claim form as proof of I D

That landowner or MA. letter has many errors

These are not fines

It's not illegal to park there

Only the landowner can sue for trespass , which they are not doing

As above , their English is appalling , as is their knowledge about this topic

@Redx Thank you so much, I did suspect that their references to trespass and illegal action were untrue. I'm gathering at this stage (defence) that I need not reference their correspondence.

With all of the info that my brain can take from the newbies thread, CEL casefiles and other defence templates, I have managed to draft the following as my final defence.

Please can someone have a quick glance at it and let me know if it'd be okay to send?
Quick brief being:
- Parked in a car park that I've previously been given permission to park in, to attend estate agents for contract signing (NOV 18).
- Nothing received until court claim stating permit parking only (Sep 19). No PCN, photos, chances to pay etc.
- Claim totals £256.18
- POC only references "driver of the vehicle" - more than one insured at the time.
- Landowner states unable to help as outside of 2 week potential cancellation period.

Issue Date of Claim: 23/09/19

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: CXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

XXXX XXXXXX (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________


1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of 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.

2. The Particulars of Claim reference the driver of the vehicle being responsible for the breach of terms and conditions. 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.

3. As the PCN (not received) referenced in the claim was almost a year ago the defendant cannot ascertain who the driver was on the day in question and the defendant states that there was more than one person insured on the car at the time.

4. The Particulars of the Claim state that ANPR technology is used to identify vehicles and the times of entry and exit. No photographic evidence has been provided of the vehicle XXXX XXX entering or exiting the car park on the material date.

5. 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 aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

6. 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 earlier General Judgment or Orders of DJ Grand, who (when sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court in 2018 and 2019) has struck out several parking firm claims. These include a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Orders have been identical in striking out both claims without a hearing, with the Judge stating: ''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...''

7. 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.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Name XXX
Signature XXX
Date XXX

Coupon-mad

the defendant cannot ascertain who the driver was on the day in question and the defendant states that there was more than one person insured on the car at the time.

Don't lie to the court. We know and you know this was about when the Defendant was signing their tenancy agreement (not leasehold agreement, as that's when you own a flat). So, don't say you can't recall who was driving in YOUR case.

IMHO you can still use promissory estoppel like I told you because you were relying upon a promise made by the AGENTS of the LEASEHOLDER who was letting this flat to you and passing on all their rights and easements which includes a right to park. However a new tenant cannot possibly have a physical permit from the first minute and can only rely upon the verbal permission given to park, which did exist.

You need to say all of that - EVEN THOUGH the lettings agent didn't want to commit to admitting in writing that they gave you permission by directing you to park to sign the tenancy agreement that day.

Do the search I told you to do 3 weeks back (using those 2 keywords) and find a more detailed defence about promissory estoppel in a residential car park.

Also search for Jopson defence and use that case too.

GetSmarterVictoria

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Don't lie to the court. We know and you know this was about when the Defendant was signing their tenancy agreement (not leasehold agreement, as that's when you own a flat). So, don't say you can't recall who was driving in YOUR case.

IMHO you can still use promissory estoppel like I told you because you were relying upon a promise made by the AGENTS of the LEASEHOLDER who was letting this flat to you and passing on all their rights and easements which includes a right to park. However a new tenant cannot possibly have a physical permit from the first minute and can only rely upon the verbal permission given to park, which did exist.

You need to say all of that - EVEN THOUGH the lettings agent didn't want to commit to admitting in writing that they gave you permission by directing you to park to sign the tenancy agreement that day.

Do the search I told you to do 3 weeks back (using those 2 keywords) and find a more detailed defence about promissory estoppel in a residential car park.

Also search for Jopson defence and use that case too.

Hi CM, thanks for your reply. There are actually two drivers on the car and I'm 90% sure that I wasn't the driver at the time although I genuinely can't be certain, which is the reason I added that part. Not sure if their photo would show a driver or not.

With regards to promissory estoppel, I did look into it but was concerned that as there was correspondence between myself and the estate agents that this could be used against me (i think in my desperation to gain a letter from them proving my attendance for the land owner, I may have referenced not wanting to implicate them). So I'm worried that if they involve the estate agent, this could come to light.

Would you still suggest including it?

Thank you,

Victoria.

Le_Kirk

Have a look again at the Bargepole defence, particularly your point 2 which seems to be offering a menu of choice from ONE item! I believe the normal paragraph is "Keeper/Driver" in which case a menu of choice (i.e. choose between two items) is correct. What about signage and landowner authority?

GetSmarterVictoria

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Have a look again at the Bargepole defence, particularly your point 2 which seems to be offering a menu of choice from ONE item! I believe the normal paragraph is "Keeper/Driver" in which case a menu of choice (i.e. choose between two items) is correct. What about signage and landowner authority?

Thank you! I had edited that one a few times so didn't realise that I'd omitted the choice!

I wasn't sure that I should include landowner authority as the landowners management agent have been in contact referencing the "car parking management company". My assumption being that in that case the landowner has given authorisation. If you still think it worthwhile to include it then I will .

Regarding signage, I don't recall clear signs but this was almost a year ago and I haven't revisited the site since. I'll put it in as it can only help.

Thank you!

Le_Kirk

You still need the claimant to prove their case.