CPMS - LETTER OF CLAIM RECEIVED UPDATE 2021 - FINAL WITNESS STATEMENT HELP

Coupon-mad

The template already deals with signage.  No idea why people ask this, when the template clearly says something about signs already.  Of course a person who wasn't necessarily driving can talk about what their research or local knowledge has revealed about the specifics of unclear signs. 

However, are you better admitting to driving if your case is about unclear signs?  Many cases are better fought that way as it appears more honest as your stance in court, less evasive.

However you can see in the attached image (taken from the SAR) that they seemingly have sent the NTK before receiving my details from the DVLA? 

No,. it says June, not May.  Looks like they posted a thing they call a PCN then a month later, a letter they call a NTK (no issue with that).

KeithP

greengeko said:

I have now received my letter of claim (Issued 20 Oct 2020).

I have completed my AOS today (1 Nov 2020).

 But on 2nd October, in your opening post, you told us...

greengeko said:
Having now received a letter of claim...

It appears that you may now have received a County Court Claim Form.
Attention to detail now becomes increasingly important.

With a Claim Issue Date of 20th October, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 23rd November 2020 to file your Defence.

That's over three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

greengeko

Coupon-mad:

Apologies I know the template deals with signage but it was more a question about #3 and if to include signage at this stage if only defending as keeper.

Regarding driver vs. keeper - I assume their is little difference at this stage in terms of legal outcome implications? But I agree about appearing more honest.

KeithP:

Sorry to clarify - the original post referred to the "Letter of Claim" issued by BWLegal. I have indeed now received the County Court Claim Form. Really appreciate the information about dates - many thanks for that.

Will update with a draft defence - thanks again for everyone's input.

Umkomaas

Regarding driver vs. keeper

Defending this as keeper (rather than driver) is only sensible if the PPC has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4); additionally, if you can prove as well that you were not the driver at the time of the parking event, then that gives you a very firm base to work from. Otherwise, it's only likely to give you problems. 

Castle

What is the full claimant's name on the claim form?

BrownTrout

CPMS Manchester is a nasty little company 

greengeko

Castle said:

What is the full claimant's name on the claim form?

CAR PARK MANAGEMENT SERVICES (CPMS) LTD

Umkomaas said:

Regarding driver vs. keeper

Defending this as keeper (rather than driver) is only sensible if the PPC has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4); additionally, if you can prove as well that you were not the driver at the time of the parking event, then that gives you a very firm base to work from. Otherwise, it's only likely to give you problems. 

Unfortunately from what I can see they have indeed complied so I will bare that in mind - many thanks Umkomaas

So frustrated by all of this - exactly what I don't need right now given the second peak and I'm a healthcare worker!

nosferatu1001

You keep stating "at this stagel
You have ONE defence

one.  

You get one chance to put forward you full and total defence. That's it. 

I have no idea why people think , having read the newbies thread. That there is more than one defence stage. 

greengeko

nosferatu1001 said:

You keep stating "at this stagel
You have ONE defence

one.  

You get one chance to put forward you full and total defence. That's it. 

I have no idea why people think , having read the newbies thread. That there is more than one defence stage. 

Thanks for your input nosferatu1001 and I appreciate you making this point.

I'm very much aware that I have one and only one defence and when I say "this stage" I just mean this stage in the entire process as a general term. Apologies if this wasn't apparent.

greengeko

Hi all,
I was hoping to get some feedback on a initial draft defence (adapted from the sticky by couponmad).
I've only included what I have changed from the template document.
Thoughts on this?
Additional points I have (but not included are):

• Given access by estate agent and told to park where vehicle was parker - implied permission to be there?
• Not receiving the NTK and getting no response (x2) from CPMS when tried to contact them - and therefore escalating the whole matter without a chance at any resolve.

I have included a up close photo of the gate sign, terms and conditions sign (found elsewhere) and the space where the car was parked to put everything into context.
Thanks again everyone - any help would be greatly appreciated.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. On the material date and time in question it is admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle.

3. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was inadequate.

3.1. It is accepted by the Defendant that on the date and time in question an entrance sign was visible but did not convey any contractual terms and simply stated that “PARKING RESTRICTIONS APPLY” and to “READ SIGNAGE WITHIN”. No signage displaying terms and conditions was reasonably visible at the entrance gate.

3.2. The Defendant states the signage displaying the terms and conditions was deficient in number, distribution and wording to reasonably convey a contractual obligation

3.2.1. The signage at the time of the material events did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant is a signatory. The signage displaying the terms and conditions are not in “sufficient number so that they are clearly visible to Motorists on the Controlled Land”. It is put forward that the Claimant is unable to provide evidence that the signage displaying the terms and conditions were reasonably visible from the area occupied by the vehicle. Additionally, the signage displaying the terms and conditions do not explicitly identify Car Park Management Services as “as ‘the Creditor’” as such the Defendant avers that they cannot be held to a contractual obligation with an unidentified party.

3.3.  The signage displaying the terms and conditions refers only to “ALLOCATED PARKING ONLY”, indicating individuals should only park in their “OWN ALLOCATED BAY”. Therefore, only individuals with allocated bays can potentially be bound by the terms conveyed (and only if the terms were clear and prominent as adequate notice of the condition, which is denied).