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).
Total Parking Solutions
jedilace
Posts: 19 Forumite
Hi all thanks, for all the hard work to the community for maintaining these boards.
I've been issues a Claim form from the the county court business center for overstaying in a parking lot with poor signs. I overstayed by an hour, and frankly didn't even know there was a parking limit or even a paid parking area.
I ignored most of the letters before this.
I read up on the forums and will post my defense claim shorty.
Edit: I didn't buy a ticket, the parking was close to my hotel and I had mistaken it for the hotel parking. There were no signs on entering, hence my mistake.
Location was Jempsons in Rye.
I've been issues a Claim form from the the county court business center for overstaying in a parking lot with poor signs. I overstayed by an hour, and frankly didn't even know there was a parking limit or even a paid parking area.
I ignored most of the letters before this.
I read up on the forums and will post my defense claim shorty.
Edit: I didn't buy a ticket, the parking was close to my hotel and I had mistaken it for the hotel parking. There were no signs on entering, hence my mistake.
Location was Jempsons in Rye.
0
Comments
-
Hi all thanks, for all the hard work to the community for maintaining these boards.
I've been issues a Claim form from the the county court business center for overstaying in a parking lot with poor signs. I overstayed by an hour, and frankly didn't even know there was a parking limit.
I ignored most of the letters before this.
I read up on the forums and will post my defense claim shorty.
Who is the legal acting for TPS. Please list the amounts they are claiming for0 -
Do not forget to complain to your MP.
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, and 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][/FONT]You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
CLAIM No: xxxxx
BETWEEN:!
TOTAL PARKING SOLUTIONS LIMITED (Claimant)
-and-
xxxxx (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 xxxx, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to TOTAL PARKING SOLUTIONS LIMITED at xxxx carpark.
3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant !!! 8220;was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)!!!8221;. 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.
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.
6. Furthermore the signage is displayed in a way that isn't seen when entering the car park and only accessible at certain areas of the car park. This leaves a large portion of the car park inaccessible to the signage, and in certain cases allows the user of the carpark to enter and leave without seeing the signage
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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 £54, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
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.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
Name
Signature
Date0 -
However much it is it is likely to contain unlawful amounts, read this,
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal
and if so complain to the SRA
https://www.sra.org.uk/You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Normally BWLegal add £60 for fake contractual costs
So as the ticket was £40 what is their explanation for adding an extra £34.82
£4.82 is interest at 8% per annum and I'm guessing the extra £30 because I failed to pay the PCN within 28 days.
So it went from £40 to £70, I'll need to look at older letter which I don't have access to atm.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 349.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453K Spending & Discounts
- 242.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 619.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.4K Life & Family
- 255.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards