ops ltd - vantage point Brighton - Claim form sent

joeythepoey

Right, thank you all for your help so far. 

I've cannibalised various bits from this forum and beyond, including CP's basher52 defence and another OPS one, as well as a few sections from a previous CC that I won.

First draft, so go easy on me. I need to post this on Monday latest so any feedback will be greatly appreciated - Cheers!

Few quick questions: point 3 - I don't know if the 14 days is working days or just days - if the latter, then that alone would make a pretty strong point? Otherwise I'll have to remove it.

Point 4 - their signage - they did include a picture of the sign, which states CCTV & Mobile Patrol parking enforcement is in operation at all times. This is next to the PDT machine on site.

This line/point doesn't seem particularly strong to me - do they need special permission for each item of enforcement?

Point 5.1-5.2 - kind of saying the same thing but 5.2 is more detailed.

Anyway, here it is:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q-aFRmXuoY9hHIjSFdyya8d1jEnCVHGU/view?usp=sharing

Coupon-mad

You won't be posting a defence in the mail.    It is headed up wrongly.  DEFENCE STATEMENT is not how I headed up the one for basher52.

And of course the 14 days means 14 days... we are constantly astonished when people ask ''is that working days?'' 
NO...  But it is NOT a strong point a driver can use (in fact, remove it - the POFA means nothing at all for your good lady wife, the Defendant) if she revealed she was driving all those years ago in that appeal.   She did, didn't she? 

Therefore the POFA is out the window and not a point at all.

Only a registered keeper can use the POFA 14 days calculation, not someone who talks about how they parked and what THEY did on the day, as driver.

This line/point doesn't seem particularly strong to me - do they need special permission for each item of enforcement?

I don't follow which point you are asking about and what your question means? 

You need to remove ALL of the below, due to repetition and rants, you need to remove the names of the disgraced directors (though what you say is in the public domain already!) and you talk about POPLA here, but this is a defence:

5.2. It is suggested that One Parking Solution does not have proprietary interest in the land and merely acting as agents for the owner/occupier. Therefore, I ask that One Parking Solution be asked to provide strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner, which specifically grants them the standing to make contracts with drivers and to pursue charges in their own name in the courts. Documentary evidence must pre-date the parking event in question and be in the form of genuine copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and not just a signed ‘witness statement’ slip of paper saying it exists.
Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this
operator to strict proof of full compliance:
7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out: a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations,
including any restrictions on hours of operation.
c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be
subject to parking control and enforcement 
d. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e. the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement
5.3. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft
particulars’.
5.4. One Parking Solution's two main directors, Mr xxx xxxxx and Mr xxxx xxxxx, were prosecuted and found guilty in 2017 of being directors of a prohibited company named Assured Security Solutions. This is evidence they are rogue traders and as seen above, are not operating a fully compliant and legal operation under the alternative name of One Parking Solution. As an independent arbitrator there can be no possibility of POPLA finding in favour of a firm run by rogues who are ignoring a wide range of basic legal requirements in running their practice.
6. The arbitrary addition of a fixed sum purporting to cover 'recovery costs' is also
potentially open to challenge as an unfair commercial practice under the CPRs, where 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.
7. Alleging that the letters the parking firm sent have caused an additional loss, is
simply untrue.
The standard wording for parking charge/debt recovery contracts is/was 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.

Did she appeal to POPLA and does she still have their evidence pack did it arrive by email and have all the files & photos?  

If it's no longer available but if she did try POPLA, she can get the 2 year old evidence pack from POPLA (I just found this out this week) by emailing them and the Ombudsman data team will retrieve the evidence - all of it - and will provide it to her.  That way she gets to see all the photos & letters and the landowner authority that they bunged at POPLA.

I wasn't involved at this point, so better half responded to them, including a copy of the ticket explaining it had fallen down.  OPS responded by saying she hadn't responded within their time limit and therefore denied her explanation and ticket.
Since then we've ignored them in the hope they would go away but alas, 2.5 years later they have returned and are now intending on taking us to court, and we've received a Claim Form from the CCBC.

As a first step I've responded online, disagreeing to the claim on moneyclaim.gov on all accounts and buying myself some time.

Well I hope you didn't do that in your name, not using your Govt Gateway account I hope?  

When you say ''myself'' you mean your wife/partner, as she is the Defendant and she has to go to court, although you can go with her as her lay rep (or I am happy to help in person...that offer is always open in the Brighton/Worthing area and I do it for nothing except a coffee/expenses) 

joeythepoey

Hey CM,

Weird, must have had my wires crossed - I copied this from a defence google doc that I thought was the basher52 one that you wrote, but that's seemingly another one. I've spent considerable amount of time trying to find all the threads, and with dozens of tabs prolly got a bit lost.

Anyhoo, thanks for your comments. 14 days - I only ask because it wasn't clear to me.

With regards to the driver - my wife, who am writing this for, had already mailed them an appeal before I got involved with a copy of her ticket and identifying herself as the driver - so seems pointless to be vague about it now, if not illegal. So I guess I'll have to take line of defence out.

With regards to signs and enforcement - I saw you mention in another thread that OPS might not have necessary authorisation for the site to use a PDT machine; and they state on their signage that they use CCTV as well - my question was wether they needed additional authorisation from the landowner for that?

joeythepoey

btw, I just responded to your post before I'd seen the edited version - thank you. I will respond tomorrow as it's getting late, but really appreciate your help.

Coupon-mad

Did she try POPLA, as that will reveal everything including the landowner contract which I think talked only about a permit scheme.  Like I said, you can email for an old POPLA evidence pack and they will provide it (POPLA, not the PPC). 

Not that it will arrive in time for a defence that has to be signed by your wife and mailed in a day or so, but it will arrive in good time for her WS & evidence stage.

joeythepoey

She did not try Popla unfortunately; by the time I got involved they'd already filed the claim. 

joeythepoey

Hi CM, thanks for your help so far.
When you say remove all - is that remove points 5.2 to 7 from my linked-to document, i.e the section you quoted including the mention of the OPS directors?

joeythepoey

Right, updated version - would be great if anyone and CM in particular could have a look through - need to post upload it over the next couple of hours...
Cheers!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q-aFRmXuoY9hHIjSFdyya8d1jEnCVHGU/view?usp=sharing

joeythepoey

Just noted my numbering is off - will fix that in the next version..

joeythepoey

Hi guys and galls,
Hope you are all safe, healthy and well; also, Happy Easter!

I've received a 'Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track' from CCBC.
It says it is a defended claim and that this case is suitable for small claims track.
I need to fill in an N180 form, and I've got till 27th of April to respond.

What's the best course of action here? We're not necessarily interested in settling anything; I don't feel this claim should've even be brought. If anything, I'm inclined to counter claim for the amount of time they've wasted, but that's just fighting talk:)

Fill in the forms and wait for the next step?