County court letter *URGENT*

zeekay

Hello,

More than a week ago, I received a county court letter advising me of two different charges which I had parked in their space. I had no tickets... Just letters in the post which I was advised to ignore (Wrong decision). I have already acknowledged this online and really need some help to write up the defense as I am clueless. I do not have long to submit my defense and I have been advised to post here . I have read through the noob section a few times which is really useful but I am still unsure of how to write the defense. I have seen that many defenses that have been won have been identical (one fits all).

If this was generally my fault, I would offcourse pay this but please hear out my story first:
- I was inside a Staples store for the hours specified as I was contracted to be there (Work). I had overstayed about 10 minutes on one of the letter which is absolutely ridiculous. I did not speak to the store manager about the parking but the store staff advised that it would be okay. Now, a few days ago, I revisited the parking lot (which is far from where I live) and found it to be closed permanently. I went to a nearby store on the same parking lot and they told me that the store manager should of inputted my reg number into the system... Now I cant get hold of anyone from the store. Because I was only told to visit the store by a phone call, I don't have any evidence of actually being there....

Any help whatsoever would be greatly appreciated.
Many thanks!
Zee

*NOTE* for photo's, please msg me and I can email to you as new members aren't allowed to post links.....

Le_Kirk

If you go to a section marked NEWBIE sticky and read it, you will be informed. Have you received letters from Northampton CCBC? If so what are the issue dates? When you are in the NEWBIE sticky go to post # 2, where you will find 17 pre-written defence examples. One of those will surely (nearly) suit your circumstances.

KeithP

Sounds like you might have received a County Court Claim Form.

If that's right, what is the Issue Date and did it come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton?

zeekay

Thank you both for your quick replies.

Yes it is County Court Business centre in Northampton. I'm from Bristol and really don't want to have to travel all the way there for court. Is there any way to change this?

The Claimant is G24 Limited. The solicitors are Gladstones.

The issue date is: 07 OCT 2019 and my acknowledged claim was received at 14/10/2019 at 01:07:57.

Also what is the title of the #2 post in the newbies page. I'm having difficulty finding it.

KeithP

zeekay wrote: »

The issue date is: 07 OCT 2019 and my acknowledged claim was received at 14/10/2019 at 01:07:57.

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th October, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 11th November 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over two weeks away. Plenty 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 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.

You won't have to travel to Northampton. If you are an individual, rather than a company, later in the process the case will be transferred to your local court.

Follow the link I have given you for the NEWBIES thread to find those Defences that Le_Kirk mentioned.

Umkomaas

One of the very first G24 court cases posted on here, having been previously very court-shy, it will be interesting to see just how far they go on this.

@OP - you need to get a grip on this as no one here will do it for you, it’s your case and you need to ‘own’ what it is you put in your defence and subsequent court submissions, as you may have to talk to them in front of a Judge - if it gets that far.

zeekay

Thank you for your help. I will update this post when I have done that and have submitted my defense.

The claim is worth almost £500 so i don't really blame G24 for chasing this but I'm going to fight until the end. Also, yes for sure. I will only use the written defenses in the noob section as a base as you're most definitely right about owning my defense.

Thanks again. Please reply back here if you have anything else that can help with my defense. Would be most appreciated.

Umkomaas

Please reply back here if you have anything else that can help with my defense. Would be most appreciated.

Yep - get your spellchecker changed from US English to UK English.

It’s defence.

Coupon-mad

Thank you for your help. I will update this post when I have done that and have submitted my defense.

Other way round - you must show us your DRAFT DEFENCE (no 's') first, just like everyone else you see in shedloads of other claim threads. We will then help tweak it.

If you think you have to go to Northampton you haven't read the NEWBIES FAQS properly yet and that is where ti start (post #2 of it all about Court Procedures, defences, et al, not the first post of the sticky which is about appealing a PCN).

Then read 20 or 30 other claim threads and I mean that many! No coming back here yet!

zeekay

Hi Guys,

Here is my defense so far. This is my first time ever putting together something like this so I know its crap but any pointers, tips would be great. It's pretty much 99% copy pasta from other threads so yeah.

My deadline is 11th Nov so Ideally I'd like to send this away by the end of this week.

Also a big part of my defense is the time stayed (only 10 minutes over on one of the notices), could someone point me to a similar thread or help me write this in legal terms. thanks.

IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: XXXXXXX
BETWEEN:
XXXXXXX (Claimant)
-and-
XXXXXXX (Defendant)
DEFENCE 
The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the driver(s) alleged breach of contract when parking at Office Outlet, Newfoundland St, Bristol, Avon, Bs2 9DA car park.
The so called Contravention was detected and recorded by Automatic Number Plate Recognition Cameras (ANPR).
The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons:
1. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge
2. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
3. The claimant is attempting to add on additional ‘debt collection’ charges which was not part of the ‘supposed contract.’
4. The charge is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
5. The notice to keeper is incorrect.
6. No locus standi
7. The attended store is permanently closed


 
1. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. As there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability
'There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no 'reasonable presumption' in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.'

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''
2. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver(s) did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:



In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting color background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:



This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:



As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:



''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2' letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3' or even larger.''

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:



This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a drivers seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver(s) perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver(s) seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.
[Please Figures 1, 2 and 3 in the appendix of this defence for photographs taken by the driver(s), outside the car]
The defendant denies that the driver(s) would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100.00 (or the early payment option of £60.00) to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.
 
3. The claimant is attempting to add on additional ‘debt collection’ charges which was not part of the ‘supposed contract.’

The claim includes an additional £60, described as a debt collection charge. The Defendant believes this to be an abuse of process as these charges were not stated as part of the supposed contract. 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.

The defendant has the reasonable belief that the claimant has not incurred £120 costs to pursue an alleged £200 debt as, whilst £120.00 may be recoverable in an instance where a claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim, the claimant has not expended any such sum in this case.
This claimant uses two debt recovery agents one being “Dept Recovery Plus” the other being “Zenith Collections” Both work on a no WIN no FEE basis. Proof of this is within the dept recovery agent’s letters to the defendant. The first one being from “Debt Recovery Plus Ltd” where the original invoice has jumped from £100.00 to £160.00, then a second Invoice from “Debt Recovery Plus Ltd” now reduced to £136.00, then a third Invoice from “Zenith Collections” Now reduced to £79.99.

4. The charge is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The amount being charged is not based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to the claimants company or the landowner. In the Defendants case the £200.00 INVOICE the claimant is asking for far exceeds the cost to the landowner for the overstayed 13 & 38 minutes.

Furthermore, the costs that the claimant is trying to recover does not add up with the original invoices. Whilst the total amount being pursued is £434.80:
2 x £100 = £200.00. (Alleged parking charges).
2 x £60 = £120.00. (Alleged debt recovery charges).
£35 + £50 = £85.00 (Court and solicitor fees).
The claimed amount and fees only add up to £405.00. The added 'debt collection’ and other charges are in fact an artificially invented figure, which represents a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules and achieve double recovery.

The claimant has at no time provided an explanation of how the parking charge has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated from £100.00 to £160.00. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.
The driver(s) did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established. 
5. No locus Standi.

The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the claimant’s contractual authority to operate there as required by the claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1.
The claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question.

The claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient 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.

In order to issue and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. The claimant has taken no steps to provide evidence that such authority has been supplied by the claimant, and the claimant is put to strict proof. Even if the claimant is able to produce such a landowner contract, it is averred that there can be no legitimate interest arguable by the claimant in this case.

6. The claimant has attempted to intimidate and threaten the defendant.
The claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a recovery agent (which suggested to the defendant that a County Court Judgment would apply if matters were taken to court and that the defendant's ability to obtain credit would be affected) adding further unexplained charges with no evidence of how these extra charges have been calculated.
7. The attended store is permanently closed
The driver was parked as they were inside an ‘Office Outlet’ store which ensured that it would be okay to park for the duration. The store staff had ensured that the vehicles registration would be inputted into the system on both occasions. The store is now permanently closed as seen in figure 4.

 
Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim. It is submitted that the conduct of the claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2) (g).
The Court is also invited to take Judicial Notice of House of Commons, Friday 2 February 2018 meeting on Parking (Code of Practice) Bill where the MPs highlight these scams of the private parking companies and their solicitors.
The defendant respectfully requests the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and 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 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''.
If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.
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 in ignoring the defendant is wholly unreasonable. As such, the defendant will keep a note of their wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

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


 
Appendix

Figure 1 – View from the entrance

[15/11/2019]
 
Figure 2 – Extreme close up of the sign in the entrance

[15/11/2019]
 
Figure 3 – Close up of a second sign which is hidden in greenery.

[15/11/2019]





Figure 4 – The now permanently closed ‘Office Outlet.’

[15/11/2019]

Le_Kirk

You need to ditch your point 4 as this is an outdated concept and was killed off by Beavis. Also that looks like a) an old defence and b) more of a combined defence and witness statement. Narrative and evidence are supplied later as a witness statement whilst your defence should just be the legal/technical points rebutting what it states in the POC.

Check out the 17 pre-written defence examples in the NEWBIE sticky post # 2 or some guidance as to form, style and content.