county court parking ticket

Umkomaas

roythefone55 wrote: »

THIS IS MY DEFENCE
1. The Claimant has supplied no information to support the allegations in the Particulars of Claim, which allegations are denied. The Defendant has asked Claimant for Particulars which are awaited, and reserves the right to make a further response when such Particulars are known.

2. Without acceptance of any liability to the Claimant, the Defendant considers the amount claimed to be excessive, unfair, contrary to that permitted by law, and an unfair abuse of process.

3. The Defendant denies any liability to the Claimant.

Have you checked out the example defences in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2? They should help you flesh yours out.

the amount claimed to be excessive, unfair, contrary to that permitted by law,

Which ‘law’ is that? Remember, you are putting this in front of a legally qualified Judge, so you must be able to spell out which ‘law’ the parking charge is contrary to.

roythefone55

I Think i got my dates mixed up as this is the letter recieved am i in time to send my defence monday 14 october

A Connty eourt Judgment May Be Entcred Agdnst You
As you are &wars, wr repre$ent Premier Park Limited" W* have isrued legal proceedings against you in the form of
a County Court Claim. You have failed to respond with any proposals for payment or, alternatively, the reasons
why the dcbt is disputed.
If you do not contact us or respond to the Coung Court Claim, we will eftter ff County Court Judgment ("CCJ")
against you afler 15 October 2019, if a CCJ is entered against you, it will remain on the Judgment Register for six
years and you may have difficulty in obtaining further eiedit.
If a CCJ is granted and you still do not make arraRgements to pay, we nury seek to enforce the CCJ through one of
the following:
#arrant of Control \ Countv Court Bailiff mav visit vou at vour sorry about the spelling

KeithP

I am sorry but I misread your post #3 and based my detailed response in post #7 on a Claim Issue Date of 16th September.

That was wrong.

Please disregard post #7.

Here is the revised target date:

With a Claim Issue Date of 6th September, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you had until 4pm on Wednesday 9th October 2019 to file your Defence.

You have already missed that target date.
You had already missed that target date when you started this thread.

My best suggestion is that you file a Defence as soon as possible in the hope that the Claimant has not yet sought a Default Judgment.
Can you check on MCOL claim history whether a Default Judgment has been sought?

Once again, I apologise for this mistake, but even if the mistake had not been made, you were still past the due date when I wrote post #7.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence could 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.

beamerguy

You know roythefone55, the letter from BWLegal is the biggest load of cr*p ever

It is menacing and should be reported to the SRA

It's not even been to court yet and given their fake add-ons which the courts state is abuse of process, do they really think they will win on a scam ..... seems not as more and more courts are understanding this scam

Only a judge can issue a CCJ not some two bit legal firm

Amazed that the BWL stupidity grows on a daily basis, who on earth at BWL writes this rubbish and drivel

roythefone55

please check my defence which i will submit tommorow

1)It is admitted that the defendant, Mr XXXXXX XXXXX, residing at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

2)The claim dates back to 2014,and only says the PCN was issued at ~~~~~~~House.

3)This vechile is a light van which is used in Business by 3 other drivers
4) It is denied that any 'parking charges or indemnity costs' (whatever they might be) are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

5) This is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors . The Particulars are not clear and concise, so I have had to cover all eventualities in defending this claim. This has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way. As a defendant I face court costs if the claimant prevails and a hearing for essentially the unfounded allegation which at best, should be struck out earlier at the Judge's discretion.

6) This claim merely states: ''parking charges for no permit and indemnity costs if applicable'' which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. For example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'. '.

7) The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.

8) I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

9) I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

10) No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.

11) It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.

12) I put the claimant to strict proof of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this claimant which enable these charges to be pursued in court by this contractor, for these alleged contravention(s), whatever they may be.

13) The alleged debt as described in the claims are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

14) Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA), a registered keeper can only be held liable for the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' .. This 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.

15) It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.

16) 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 which is an abuse of process i refer to a recent case Claim number is F0DP201T District Judge Taylor
Southampton Court, 10th June 2019 which was struck out..

17) This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye 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.

18) The claimant appears to have misused my VRN data by 'processing' it to investigate the SORN status, against the DPA Principles, more than once. Misuse of personal data is a tort, the remedy for which would be a claim for damages which I may pursue separately once these claims are struck out.

19) The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

20) I request the court strike out this claim for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief

roythefone55

no judgement has been entered yet as i checked just now,i will get my defence in tommorrow before phoneing the court

Umkomaas

roythefone55 wrote: »

no judgement has been entered yet as i checked just now,i will get my defence in tommorrow before phoneing the court

Just get it off (in whatever form) right away in an attempt to keep the ball in play.

You can do more later in the process if you’re still above water.

KeithP

Umkomaas is right.

Get your Defence filed tonight if possible.

Follow the guidance in post #14.

No need to phone the CCBC.

roythefone55

thanks guys all submitted i edited a bit more n for now ive got a bit more relief PHEW
THANKS for all who helped cos wow i nearly gave up but im ready to fight letter to my MP next:p

roythefone55

Helllooo well well well despite allmy fears i had a letter saying the case is dismissed and thanking me for my patence i was in the stage of waiting for a date for my local county court so thankd for all your help