We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Please kindly REVIEW MY DEFENCE. AOS sent a fortnight ago.
Options
Saki0807
Posts: 10 Forumite
Background: Free car park -2.5 hours; CEL authorised to manage private property car park; ANPR at entrance and exit. Naive admission originally that I was the driver. Appeal submitted to POPLA with a clear argument on unclear signage/insufficient notice and photographic proof of overgrown trees obscuring many signs. POPLA did not receive my PDF so my appeal has never actually been read!- verbal agreement to review my case many months later on admission by a POPLA operator that they had historic problems with pdf files. Written word contradicts verbal as they didn't carry out any of these promises and just repeated their original decision - telephone recordings requested last week as per GDPR. Don't think this line of argument should be added to my defence??
AOS submitted (sent by signed for first class) and have until END of November to submit my defence. I have spent a long time on researching and reading so I am hoping I don't need to substantially edit my defence. I would REALLY appreciate some feedback.
Thank you to this forum, it has been a genuine life saver and most importantly has given me the courage to defend myself against these money grabbing morons.
(Do I email my defence?)
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx
BETWEEN:
UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)
-and-
xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from the driver’s alleged breach of contract, when parking on the material date in a marked bay at xxxxx car park.
3. The Particulars of Claim state 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 entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
5. The claimant states that the defendant’s vehicle was captured by their ANPR system at the entrance and exit to the site. However, this is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question. The ANPR system does not take into account any waiting times within the car park when the car is not parked.
6. Further, the Claimant’s signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR date will be used for, which breaches the BPA Code of Practice and the Consumer Protection for Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 due to the inherent failure to indicate the ‘commercial intent’ of the cameras.
7. 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. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.
8. The Defendant avers that the signage at the site in question was demonstrably OBSCURED by foliage, this is supported by photographic evidence taken at the time of the driver’s alleged breach of contract.
9. 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.
10. Further, there is insufficient notice of the parking charge itself. The sum of the parking charge appears in the same very small font size used to supply the address of the claimant. I believe this is intentional on the part of the operator to “bury” vital information in a wall of words to deliberately confuse car park users.
11. The terms of parking are displayed inadequately, without prominence and clarity. The actual visibility of signage, the legibility of the wording and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself leads the Defendant to aver that the signage is in breach of the Claimant’s own Trade Association’s code of conduct.
12.The lack of clear and prominent signage differentiates this case from the Parking Eye vs Beavis case upon which the Claimant may rely, and that the signage fails the test of Lord Denning’s “Red Hand Rule”.
13. The case Parking Eye vs Beavis [2015] addresses the need for signs to be clear, as such my case is fully distinguished in all respects, from Parking Eye V Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the decision turned on a legitimate interest and clear notices. However, this Claimant did not show the charges incurred for breach in a sufficiently large font nor had the Claimant set out the terms and conditions in a readable format without either the need for a step ladder, the need to manoeuvre oneself into a bush to gain proximity or the need to remove overgrown foliage in order to read the terms and conditions of the claimant’s signage.
14. Case law from Beavis would therefore lead to the conclusion that a vital ingredient is that signage be ample, prominent and the charge clear. In the Beavis case, the £85 charge was in the largest font and the terms were legible and unambiguous. My case, in comparison does not demonstrate an example of 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.
15. 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 parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation, and to provide details of any Terms and Conditions placed upon the Claimant by the landowner in relation to such authorisations.
16. The Parking Charge of £100 with a discount to £60 for early payment is excessive and unconscionable. In the Beavis case, it was held that the claim could not have been pleaded as damages, as that would have failed. It was accepted that £85 was the sum of parking, and that was the ‘parking charge’ for want of any other monetary consideration in a free car park. It was not pleaded in damages, unlike here, where the Claimant is attempting to claim, “debt + damages of £1xx.00.”
17. 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, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £XX, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be a disingenuous attempt at double recovery.
18. The Defendant trusts that the presiding Judge will recognise this wholly unreasonable conduct as a gross abuse of process.
19. CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.
20. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny.
21. The standard wording for parking charge/debt recovery contracts is on the Debt Recovery Plus website - ''no recovery/no fee'', thus establishing an argument that the Claimant is breaching the indemnity principle - claiming reimbursement for a cost which has never, in fact, been incurred. This is true, whether or not they used a third party debt collector during the process.
22. In fact, it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low-cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself and there has been no legal advice or personal involvement by any solicitor in churning out this template claim.
23.The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages.
24. Unlike this mendacious and greedy Claimant, ParkingEye themselves took on board the Beavis case outcome and they never add fake costs on top of the parking charge. It is indisputable that an alleged 'parking charge' penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending upon the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters, and all parking firms are very familiar with this case.
(LINK)
25. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.
26. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.
27. 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 well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery
28. 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. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was 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 Rule3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''
29. That is not an isolated judgment striking a parking claim out for repeatedly adding sums they are not entitled to recover. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated:
''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''
30.In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed untrue in terms of the added costs alleged and the statements made, in trying to justify the unjustifiable.
31. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.
32.The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant.
Statement of Truth:
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
Name
Signature
Date
AOS submitted (sent by signed for first class) and have until END of November to submit my defence. I have spent a long time on researching and reading so I am hoping I don't need to substantially edit my defence. I would REALLY appreciate some feedback.
Thank you to this forum, it has been a genuine life saver and most importantly has given me the courage to defend myself against these money grabbing morons.
(Do I email my defence?)
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx
BETWEEN:
UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)
-and-
xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from the driver’s alleged breach of contract, when parking on the material date in a marked bay at xxxxx car park.
3. The Particulars of Claim state 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 entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
5. The claimant states that the defendant’s vehicle was captured by their ANPR system at the entrance and exit to the site. However, this is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question. The ANPR system does not take into account any waiting times within the car park when the car is not parked.
6. Further, the Claimant’s signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR date will be used for, which breaches the BPA Code of Practice and the Consumer Protection for Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 due to the inherent failure to indicate the ‘commercial intent’ of the cameras.
7. 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. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.
8. The Defendant avers that the signage at the site in question was demonstrably OBSCURED by foliage, this is supported by photographic evidence taken at the time of the driver’s alleged breach of contract.
9. 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.
10. Further, there is insufficient notice of the parking charge itself. The sum of the parking charge appears in the same very small font size used to supply the address of the claimant. I believe this is intentional on the part of the operator to “bury” vital information in a wall of words to deliberately confuse car park users.
11. The terms of parking are displayed inadequately, without prominence and clarity. The actual visibility of signage, the legibility of the wording and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself leads the Defendant to aver that the signage is in breach of the Claimant’s own Trade Association’s code of conduct.
12.The lack of clear and prominent signage differentiates this case from the Parking Eye vs Beavis case upon which the Claimant may rely, and that the signage fails the test of Lord Denning’s “Red Hand Rule”.
13. The case Parking Eye vs Beavis [2015] addresses the need for signs to be clear, as such my case is fully distinguished in all respects, from Parking Eye V Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the decision turned on a legitimate interest and clear notices. However, this Claimant did not show the charges incurred for breach in a sufficiently large font nor had the Claimant set out the terms and conditions in a readable format without either the need for a step ladder, the need to manoeuvre oneself into a bush to gain proximity or the need to remove overgrown foliage in order to read the terms and conditions of the claimant’s signage.
14. Case law from Beavis would therefore lead to the conclusion that a vital ingredient is that signage be ample, prominent and the charge clear. In the Beavis case, the £85 charge was in the largest font and the terms were legible and unambiguous. My case, in comparison does not demonstrate an example of 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.
15. 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 parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation, and to provide details of any Terms and Conditions placed upon the Claimant by the landowner in relation to such authorisations.
16. The Parking Charge of £100 with a discount to £60 for early payment is excessive and unconscionable. In the Beavis case, it was held that the claim could not have been pleaded as damages, as that would have failed. It was accepted that £85 was the sum of parking, and that was the ‘parking charge’ for want of any other monetary consideration in a free car park. It was not pleaded in damages, unlike here, where the Claimant is attempting to claim, “debt + damages of £1xx.00.”
17. 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, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £XX, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be a disingenuous attempt at double recovery.
18. The Defendant trusts that the presiding Judge will recognise this wholly unreasonable conduct as a gross abuse of process.
19. CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.
20. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny.
21. The standard wording for parking charge/debt recovery contracts is on the Debt Recovery Plus website - ''no recovery/no fee'', thus establishing an argument that the Claimant is breaching the indemnity principle - claiming reimbursement for a cost which has never, in fact, been incurred. This is true, whether or not they used a third party debt collector during the process.
22. In fact, it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low-cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself and there has been no legal advice or personal involvement by any solicitor in churning out this template claim.
23.The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages.
24. Unlike this mendacious and greedy Claimant, ParkingEye themselves took on board the Beavis case outcome and they never add fake costs on top of the parking charge. It is indisputable that an alleged 'parking charge' penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending upon the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters, and all parking firms are very familiar with this case.
(LINK)
25. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.
26. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.
27. 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 well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery
28. 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. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was 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 Rule3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''
29. That is not an isolated judgment striking a parking claim out for repeatedly adding sums they are not entitled to recover. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated:
''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''
30.In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed untrue in terms of the added costs alleged and the statements made, in trying to justify the unjustifiable.
31. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.
32.The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant.
Statement of Truth:
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
Name
Signature
Date
0
Comments
-
Looks overly long. Have you read legally qualified contributor bargepole's advice on writing a concise defence in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2?
Before you start, it might be best if you get your claimants sorted out!CEL authorised to manage private property car parkBETWEEN:
UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)
On a skim read, I can see that not all is written in the third person - used 'Defendant' throughout, not 'I' - do a thorough proofread.
There has been a recent important revamp (by Coupon-mad) of post #14 in beamerguy's Abuse of Process thread. I see you have the recommended coverage in the defence, but I'm not sure whether it's the most current. Please check out the latest.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
Did you mean: -warn drivers of what the ANPR date will be used for,warn drivers of what the ANPR [strike]date[/strike] data will be used for,
Defences are written in the Third Person therefore: -as such my case is fully
Don't have links in defences, courts will not follow them, just put the heading to which it relates. Is it Parking Eye v Beavis?as such [strike]my[/strike] the defendant's case is fully
All paragraphs require a number.
There is more around the spurious additional charges posted in the Abuse of Process thread by beamerguy, search for it and use the additional info posted by Coupon-mad at post # 14 in that thread.
Also read a thread by CEC16 when Coupon-mad attended Southampton court this week.0 -
I'd get rid of #3 and #5 which is waffle, and admit to being the driver in #2 and don't then talk about an alleged breach 'by the driver'. Say 'the Defendant' - be honest.
And I WOULD mention the POPLA farce briefly, as it shows you engaged with the dispute and did not ignore it.
Did you badly overstay, or just a few minutes (how long?).
Read CEC16's thread now!PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?0
-
Thanks for replies:
Can I go through them in a list as this is where I feel out of my depth :
a) CEL authorised to manage private property car park - this is just background info on my case for forum readers and what CEL claim. I am not adding this anywhere in my defense. I am the defendant and the claimant is CEL.
b) I will look over 3rd and 1st person - thank you.
c)ANPR data - I will correct the typo.
d) I will take out any links
e) All paragraphs require a number - does this include when quoting the Judge as my paragraphs are numbered except quotes from Judges.
f) I will review post #14 to update Abuse of Process
Thanks - I will resubmit again here,0 -
I am the defendant and the claimant is CEL.
But that's not what you've put in your Defence header!UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
29th October.
20 odd minutes over0 -
Have you checked on MCOL using the password, that your AOS was received, or do you know it was due to the court signature on your tracking?29th October.
20 odd minutes over
AOS submitted (sent by signed for first class)PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thank you. I will edit to say:
Civil Enforcement Ltd (Claimant)-I was going to look at this area later - too focused on the wording of the defence.0 -
Proof of delivery/signature is available online and stated on my proof of postage. Do I need to call the court to check?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards