CE - SERVICES PCN county court letter what can I do? Follow the advice on here as i did & we won!

KeithP

People manage to file an Acknowledgment of Service every day of the week using the guidance I  have offered.

Here it is again:

To file an AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822/newbies-private-parking-ticket-old-or-new-read-these-faqs-first-thankyou 

About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Now tell me... what is difficult about that?

You must have found the NEWBIES thread - I gave you a link.
Now use your computer's find command, in Windows it's Ctrl+F, and search for dropbox.
The first occurrence of that word is the one you are looking for. 
Click on the link. Follow the instructions.

bushymusic

yes Keith...3 times its mentioned:
SMALL CLAIM? START A THREAD PLEASE (UNLESS YOU ALREADY HAVE ONE ABOUT THE SAME PCN)BUT PLEASE ONLY AFTER READING THIS AND DOING THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE ('AOS') FIRST.
-------------------------------------------------

Here is a walk-through the process from defence onwards (i.e. AFTER acknowledgement of service) by Loadsofchildren123:

-----------------------------------------------

AoS = Acknowledgement of Service (of a claim form). See the second post for the link showing how to acknowledge a claim.

 -----------------------------------------------

but where is the AOS???? to you it is obvious but i just don't see it?

KeithP

So you have found post  #2 of the NEWBIES thread. Good.

Scroll down that thread until you see:

Here is a guide to MCOL & how to acknowledge service (the first step), put together by a genuine PPC fighter:

Immediately following that is a link to a dropbox file. That Dropbox file contains the instructions on how to file an Acknowledgment of Service. You will not be using the forms you have shown us in your most recent post.

bushymusic

So according to you Kieth this is my AOS & I'll move onto the defence.

My daughter sold her flat so post is being redirected.
She is looking for a new flat in Penzance so I look forward to making the Liverpool company "Ce-services.co.uk / creative car parking" go to county court there....they are crooks & probably are destroying this Hotels reputation, losing them endless customers without them knowing....shameful.

bushymusic

Hi, 

I've emailed the Parking firm's Data Protection Officer asking for a SAR of all the information as I don't have anything apart from this first & follow up CC's.
I've read that they don't have to reply within 30 days, as as my defence has to be in by the 3rd March is there anything else I can do to get the information?

nosferatu1001

The AOS is done ON the MCOL system. theres a blindingly obvious "acknowledge the claim" section. You do NOT start the defence.
No, you cannot get this info faster. You do what everyone else does in this position, and writes a defence *anyway*. Yes, it can be done. No, there are no excuses. 

Le_Kirk

Info from the SAR will be more useful at Witness Statement (WS) stage anyway, just, as nosferatu1001 says, crack on with the defence.

bushymusic

should I post my defence on here when I've got it typed up (minus names & details etc)?

nosferatu1001

Yes, same as every thread youve ever found on this topic

bushymusic

So Ive received another updated CC letter with a different Claim number & an increase of £25. I assume i do not need to open a second AOS or MCOL?

I'm planning to submit my defence in the next 2 days, is this any good:

I am XXX, Defendant in this matter and I assert that the Claimant has no cause for action for the following reasons:

1.It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

2. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXXX XXX when it was parked at Hotel Heathrow. No PCN was warranted or received.

3. Further based upon the scant and deficient details contained in the Particulars of Claim and correspondence, it appears to be the Claimant's case that:
a. There was a contract formed by the Defendant and the Claimant on XX/XX/xxxx.
b. There was an agreement to pay a sum or parking charge
c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site
d. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.
e. The Claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.

4. It is denied that:
a. A contract was formed
b. There was an agreement to pay a parking charge.
c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site that apply to guests of the hotel under free parking.
d. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.
e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.

5. It is further denied that the Defendant is liable for the purported debt.

Rebuttal of Claim
6. 

a. The parking was free to all customers of the hotel restaurant when using their restaurant. 

b. The Defendants made all reasonable efforts in following instruction given by the hotel staff, the hotel was informed that the defendants had arrived by car & was parking in their car park.
c. The Restaurant concierge took the registration number & confirmed that they would take care of parking by entering it on their system.
d. The hotel did not inform the Defendant that there was any problem. No PCN was issued or Notice to keep so that the Defendant could communicate with the hotel with the proceeding 9 months prior to the first county court claim letter.

e. The failure of the of the hotel to communicate with the PPC is not the responsibility of the Defendants. It is not reasonable in these circumstances for the driver to assume any more obligations for making the payment.
In Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 –EGLR -154, it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach when unable to fully comply with the terms.

7. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

8. The Defendant denies that they would have agreed to pay the original demand of £12 as customers are repeatedly informed by the hotel that parking is free to costumer. The Defendant has logged 3 phone calls with the hotel during February 2020 in which they had confirmed that parking is free to customer. All receipts will be included with the defence.

9. The signage on this site was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist in the event that the hotel does not follow their own instructions after offering free parking & then failing to process this.

a. Where contract terms have different meanings, as in this instance of free parking for hotel guests with no need for a separate method of payment, then Section 69 of the CRA 2015 provides a statutory form of the contra proferentem rule, such that the consumer must be given the benefit of the doubt.
The term is fundamental to the contract, and the Defendant invites the Court to find that it is not transparent and therefore unfair. If a fundamental term to the contract is deemed to be unfair, then the contract will cease to bind the parties. The Defence invites the Court to take these issues into account in determining the fairness of the term.

10. The Claimant PPC, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £XX to £XXX. The Defendant submits the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; that these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts.
a. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”.
b. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £xx to £xx. This appears to be an added cost with no apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
b. 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 with the Defendant did not receive.

Non-disclosure of reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim:
11. The PPC are not the lawful occupier of the land. The Defendant has reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.
a. 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.
b. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a
vehicle parking at the location in question
c. 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
d. The Particulars of Claim are deficient in establishing whether the claim is brought in trespass. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis vs ParkingEye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

12. The Particulars of Claim fail to fulfil CPR Part 16.4 because it does not include a statement of the facts on which the claimant relies, only referring to a Parking Charge Notice with no further description; it fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence:
‘The driver of the vehicle registration
XXXX XXX incurred the parking
charge(s) on XX/XX/XXXX for breaching the
terms of parking on the land at hotel Heathrow.

The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or
is the Keeper of the Vehicle
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
£XXX.00 for Parking Charges / Damages and
indemnity costs if applicable, together with
interest of £12.44interst pursuant to s69 of the
County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing
to Judgement at £0.04 per day’

13. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.
a) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
b) The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
c) The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
d) The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence.
It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.

14. The Defendant invites the court to strike out or dismiss the claim under Rule 3.4(2)(a) of PRACTICE DIRECTION 3A as having not set out a concise statement of the nature of the claim or disclosed reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim (Part 16.4(1)(a) and PRACTICE DIRECTION 16 paragraphs 3.1-3.8). In C3GF84Y (Mason, Plymouth County Court), the judge struck out the claim brought by KBT Cornwall Ltd as Civil Enforcement LTD had not submitted proper Particulars of Claim, and similar reasons were cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Civil Enforcement LTD was struck out without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''. The Practice Direction also sets out the following example which is analogous to this claim: ‘those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’.’

16. The Claimant’s PPC are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. 

17. The Defendant believes the terms for such conduct is ‘robo claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to their significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

18. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

19. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

20. The Defendant invites the court to dismiss this claim out as it is in breach of pre-court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under Practice Direction 16, set out by the Ministry of Justice and also Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under 16.4 and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.