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

Redx

Mcol is the government online service , where everyone with a court claim pack can read information , download forms etc

The AOS can be done on that site by logging in instead of posting paperwork etc

If you have a new claim form with a different claim number and mcol reference , then that needs the AOS and defence doing as well , two or more claims us not unusual, so you will be asking for them to be consolidated into one , see other similar threads

As for cel , they aren't in Liverpool , plus if they were to send someone it would probably be a jobbing legal eagle touting for business in the area where the court is , so stop making assumptions and get the basics done

AOS twice , 2 defences , almost identical apart from the sums , a letter asking for consolidation from 2 to 1 

I hope your defences are based on the new template by coupon mad ?

Redx

Ignore this duplicate post

bushymusic

The second one was sent on the 11th Feb but I didn't receive it until the 17th due to redirection. I've been chasing up the land owner still trying to get it quashed. It says I have until the 1st March , yesterday too reply.
I'm i too late?

Redx

Stop asking questions and get it done , asap , do it online , now !!

bushymusic

Ok i've entered the second claim AOS & will submit a defence to both at the same time.
new template by coupon mad ? I think I have, this was the latest that I found.

 DEFENCE

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, receipt attached to defence. 

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 the free 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 within a suitable time scale within 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. 

Redx

Then any changes should be highlighted , preferably in red , because nobody needs to check what she has written , just your changes need checking ( this is standard practice ) , also find , read and post your consolidation letter request that will be filed to conjoin the 2 claims into 1

Ensure that the facts reflect your own case , your own PPC claimant and the sums involved are correct, plus location etc

bushymusic

ok thanks , i can't change the colour as i don't code so I've set text in bold and underlined. 
Sections : 6,8,9,16

1505grandad

OP  -  you posted  -  "new template by coupon mad ? I think I have, this was the latest that I found."

When Redx posted  -  "Then any changes should be highlighted , preferably in red , because nobody needs to check what she has written , just your changes need checking ( this is standard practice )"

Redx assumed (as we all did) you had found the latest - posted by C-m a few days ago - template Defence which can be found here:-

Suggested template defence to adapt for all parking charge cases where they add false admin costs

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1

THAT is the Defence to use

bushymusic

I'm going to stick with the defence from about are the CC letter was the first & i have no idea of how they got too £170.00.
are the points: 6,8,9,16 ok?

Coupon-mad

The second one was sent on the 11th Feb but I didn't receive it until the 17th due to redirection.

She (the Defendant) not you, also need to tell the court and the claimant at the start of this Defence AND IN THE COVERING EMAIL, that the address the claims were filed at is not a current address for service, if you are telling us that this is all going to an old address (has she updated the DVLA about the car's address, not just her driving licence...?).

Also, add this:

The Court is invited to take note that the Claimant has issued two claims, numbers XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXX, against the Defendant with substantially identical particulars (both sent to an old address that has caused delay in receiving the claims).   It is submitted that filing two claims rather than advancing their entire case as one, constitutes an abuse of process, unfairly putting the Defendant to potential expense for two instances of issue fees, solicitor costs, and hearing fees and days off work.  This runs contrary to the overriding objective of CPR 1.1, the disposal of cases justly and at proportionate cost. The Court is invited to consolidate the claims to be determined at a single hearing, and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant.