County court letter *URGENT*

Coupon-mad

This should be your number 1:

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:

The rest needs binning as it's not a defence, you've copied a POPLA appeal!

Search for grace period defence to defend a proper one to copy and adapt.

zeekay

Thank you for all your help so far. Do you think I should claim to be the registered keeper of the vehicle or not? I am currently rewriting my defence from the start.

I was wondering because if I claim to be then I can actually say I was inside the store at the time, on my witness statement?? What do you think will work out best for me? thanks.

The_Deep

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Do you think I should claim to be the registered keeper of the vehicle or not? I am currently rewriting my defence from the start.

I was wondering because if I claim to be then I can actually say I was inside the store at the time, on my witness statement??

Be honest, and that means in most cases, I say people should admit to being the driver unless they have no defence to offer except the POFA!

zeekay

Thanks again for your patience.

I have surfed through a few defences written up and they all seem pretty similar so i've again copied and tried to adapt with my own situation.

Defence below ====================================================

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: ********

BETWEEN:

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-


***************** (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration ********, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper.
2.1. It is denied that a 'charge notice' ('CN') was affixed to the car on the material date given in the Particulars. This Claimant is known to routinely affix misleading pieces of paper in a yellow/black envelope impersonating authority, bearing the legend 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice'. It is reasonable to conclude, from the date of the premature Notice to Keeper ('NTK') that was posted, that the hybrid note that the Claimant asserts was a 'CN' was no such thing, and therefore the driver was not served with a document that created any liability for any charge whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
2.2. Accordingly, it is denied that any contravention or breach of clearly signed terms occurred, and it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge, either by clear signage or by a CN.

3. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or 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. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. 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.
4.1. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner (Office outlet) who no longer operates its store in this car park.

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. The signage isn’t visible at all due to greenery surrounding it and the very small number of signs.
5.1 The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
5.2. At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass.
5.3. County Court transcripts supporting the Defendant's position will be adduced, and in all respects, the Beavis case is distinguished.

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
6.1. It is suggested that this novel twist (unsupported by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 - the 'POFA') of placing hybrid notes stating 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice' on cars, then ambushing the registered keeper with a premature postal NTK, well before the timeline set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA, is unlikely to have been in the contemplation of the Claimant's principal.
6.2. It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, and as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor the other, and create no certainty of contract or charge whatsoever.

7. The POFA, 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 x 2. The claim includes an additional £60 x 2, for which no calculation or explanation. The claimant has now, furthermore added a further £29 on the claim which is not explained at all, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
7.1 The claimant (G24 Limited) appear to be adding fraudulent charges for failed debt recovery by Debt Recovery Plus Ltd they have not had to pay.

8. The claimant (G24 Limited) has had no permission to share the defendant’s personal data with Debt Recovery Plus Ltd or Debt Recovery plus Trading as Zenith Collections.

9. No letter before court has ever been received by the defendant from the claimant (G24 Limited) failing to give the defendant concise details of the claim, including; the basis on which the claim is made, a summary of the facts, what the claimant wants from the defendant, and if money, how the amount is calculated. Furthermore, denying the claimant reasonable time to respond.

10. 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.

Name _____________________

Signature _____________________

Date _____________________


Seeing as I did not receive a Parking notice sticker on my car and my reg was basically detected buy the automated camera.... Do you think these points are valid and can be included?

- Points 2.1 , 2.2, 6.1

Is point 8 even relevant? Emotionally, obviously i'm not happy with how easily my information (addrsss, name etc.) has been handed around from DVLA to G24ltd.. to gladstones, etc. etc. but is anything like this mentioned in the law?

Is there any point that I can mention about the fact that one of the parking notices was for only 10 minutes over the time which it basically takes 10 mins to get in the car and leave anyway....

zeekay

The_Deep wrote: »

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.


Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.[/FONT]

I am really determined to make their lives as difficult as possible! I've already got contact with my local MP so when I send the email, do you think it would help my case by CC'ing G24 LTD and possibly scare them a little?

Le_Kirk

Seeing as I did not receive a Parking notice sticker on my car and my reg was basically detected buy the automated camera.... Do you think these points are valid and can be included?

I would say if you didn't have a PCN or a "this is not a PCN" on your windscreen you would be silly to imply you did!

Coupon-mad

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration ********, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper.

This sentence goes nowhere?

You can't copy a 'not a PCN/yellow/red card on the windscreen' defence. You need to look at ANPR ones, and defences about grace periods, and add in some facts into your #2 about working there.

zeekay

Many thanks . Below is an update of my Defence. I've tried to word it myself through point 2 as I found it really hard to find anything similar.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: ********

BETWEEN:

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-


***************** (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration ********, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper.
2.1. The driver at the time of the so called breach was contracted to work inside the ‘Office Outlet Store’ for two hours and was told by staff that the registration would be inputted into a system.
2.2. It is denied that any contravention or breach of clearly signed terms occurred, and it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge, either by clear signage or by a CN.
2.3. No notices were handed out to the driver as the car was detected entering and leaving by ANPR (automatic detection cameras). Due to the lack of notice and letters being received a month after the so called breach, the driver had no chance to inform the store before its permanent closure.
2.4. Furthermore, no grace period had been given by the claimant as they try to intimidate the defendant into paying a full penalty for an overstayed amount of 13 minutes and 40 minutes

3. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or 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. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. 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.
4.1. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner (Office outlet) who no longer operates its store in this car park.

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. The signage isn’t visible at all due to greenery surrounding it and the very small number of signs.
5.1 The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
5.2. At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass.
5.3. County Court transcripts supporting the Defendant's position will be adduced, and in all respects, the Beavis case is distinguished.

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
6.1. It is suggested that this novel twist (unsupported by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 - the 'POFA') of placing hybrid notes stating 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice' on cars, then ambushing the registered keeper with a premature postal NTK, well before the timeline set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA, is unlikely to have been in the contemplation of the Claimant's principal.
6.2. It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, and as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor the other, and create no certainty of contract or charge whatsoever.

7. The POFA, 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 x 2. The claim includes an additional £60 x 2, for which no calculation or explanation. The claimant has now, furthermore added a further £29 on the claim which is not explained at all, and which appears to be a clear attempt at double recovery.
7.1 The claimant (G24 Limited) appear to be adding fraudulent charges for failed debt recovery by Debt Recovery Plus Ltd they have not had to pay.

8. The claimant (G24 Limited) has had no permission to share the defendant’s personal data with Debt Recovery Plus Ltd or Debt Recovery plus Trading as Zenith Collections.

9. No letter before court has ever been received by the defendant from the claimant (G24 Limited) failing to give the defendant concise details of the claim, including; the basis on which the claim is made, a summary of the facts, what the claimant wants from the defendant, and if money, how the amount is calculated. Furthermore, denying the claimant reasonable time to respond.

10. 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.

Name _____________________

Signature _____________________

Date _____________________

Le_Kirk

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration ********, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper.

This is still an incomplete sentence; is something missing?