Defence Advice please CASE STRUCK OUT

covid1956

Hi everyone
After following advice on this forum i have acknowledged receipt  of my claim form using the MCOL
1.Can i submit my defence via email/online
2. Should my defence be just "bullet points" at this stage?
3. I would like to submit my defence to a competent person on this forum so they can tell me if its "up to scratch" but i am concerned that the parking companies also view this forum and i don't want them view it, any suggestions?
thanks
Covid

Redx

1) yes , as shown in other threads here

2) it should be similar to the recent defence template by coupon mad

3) just attach it or post it here , minus personal data and info , same as everyone else

covid1956

Thanks for the quick response, any chance of a link to coupon mads template?
Been to Parking Pranksters site is the e mail address for the courts  ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk. If so do you get a reciept?
Any chance of sending my defence to one of you guys as a private message?

thanks again  Covid

Le_Kirk

Just search the forum using new defence template.  The e-mail address is incorrect, it is now: - CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk

covid1956

Le_Kirk said:

Just search the forum using new defence template.  The e-mail address is incorrect, it is now: - CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk

Great will look at the defence template.
i have quite a few photos of the car park signs etc is it ok to attach these to my defence e mail?
covid

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service? If so, when?

Evidence comes later - probably some months away.

Le_Kirk

No, evidence comes later at the witness statement stage.

Redx

Pranksters site can and does contain old and out of date info , unlike MCOL

No evidence or exhibits to with the defence , nobody has ever stated that you send exhibits with the defence

Read the system and bargepole advice regarding what happens and when

covid1956

Just read "Bargepoles" court procedure post  which has cleared the matter of evidence and exhibits up, which are forwarded later after allocation to the local court
 https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5546325/court-claim-procedure-updated-october-2016

thanks
Covid

KeithP

Are you going to answer the questions I asked on 21 March at 3:52PM?

covid1956

OK here is my first attempt at a defence, i realise it will need a lot of tweeking.
Just some background info first.
I parked at this car park as it offered free parking after 6.00pm i parked at 7.30pm and got back at 8.30pm and had a ticket, 10 days earlier the local council owned the land and managed the car park but had sold the land to a private company who employed a Private Parking Company to manage it. SO BELOW IS MY DEFENCE, BE KIND BUT CONSTRUCTIVE.

DEFENCE

In the County Court   Case Number 12345

Defendant   Covid1956

Claimant      Private Parking Company

1.       I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all for the following reasons

2.      Incorrect car park name on Parking Charge Notice—The Parking Charge Notice states that the defendant’s car was parked in High Street car park, High Street car park is located 100 metres away. The defendant’s car was parked in High Street East car park. Photographs of the sign at the entrance and other evidence confirm this.High Street car park was owned and managed by ####### City Council at the time of the incident.

3.Failure to follow the compulsory Code of Practice. Page 12 Section 9.1 of the Code of Practice - Changes in Operators Terms and Conditions. Where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you should make these clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you should consider a grace period to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. It is suggested that a grace period of one month is appropriate and that during this period you should identify vehicles that would have incurred charges under the new system where they wouldn’t have previously and inform the driver by notice affixed to the vehicle that in future they will incur a charge. Vehicles that return having previously had notice of these charges can then be ticketed in the normal way at your discretion. More guidance on signage is found in Schedule 1.

The defendant was a regular user of this car park, as it offered free parking after 6.00pm. The driver saw no new signs when he entered the car park after 7.30 pm on 28/1/2015. It was dark. The previous owners of this car park, ######## City Council, state that “PPC” started managing it on the 19th of January 2015. As this ticket was issued on the 28th only 9 days later it is clear that no 1 month grace period was introduced and “PPC” have failed to comply with the code of practice.

Schedule 1 – Signage, Page 28 of the Code of Practice states that “Where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affect the motorist then you should place additional (temporary) signage at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply.  The signage should be in addition to the signage ordinarily required.” No additional signs were in place.

The claimant is asked to --

Provide proof that additional signs were erected.

Provide examples of the signs displayed.

State how long they were in place and did they clearly state that that new terms and conditions/charges apply.

 

4.Signage not to the minimum requirements of the BPA or IPC Code of Practice. The main entrance sign does not conform to the Code of Practice as it does not have the wording “Managed by” (Page 26 of the Code of Practice Schedule 1 states “It must also show the Operators name”) in addition it does not inform the driver that new charges apply (Page 26 of the Code of Practice Schedule 1 states “signage at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply”) Page 25 Schedule 1 of the Code of Practice shows the type of sign that should be present at the entrance, which is quite different to the sign for High Street East, also there is no Parking, IPC or BPA icons on the sign.

 

5.No evidence that there is a contract leading from the landowner to “PPC” so the claimant has failed to prove they have a contractual right to issue Parking Charge Notices on behalf of the landowner or the claimant: or to manage this car park or to issue legal proceedings.

 

Can “PPC”provide admissible evidence that a valid signed contract between the landowner and “PPC”, dated prior to 28/1/2015 with specific reference to High Street East car park exists, and that it has been forwarded to the IPC. 

Provide admissible evidence that “PPC” have written permission to Issue penalty charge notices of £60.00 and £100.00 at this car park. 

Provide admissible evidence that “PPC” can take legal action for non-payment of the penalty charge at High Street East car park. 

Provide admissible evidence that “PPC” can litigate in their own name.

 

6.Unreasonable behaviour by refusing to accept my offer of 21st September 2015 in excess of the loss incurred. Page 12, Section 8.1 of the Code of Practice states ”If your charges amount to damages you should be able to demonstrate how such charges are calculated for each site as a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be able to justify the amounts” The actual loss is £2.60, the cost of 2 hours parking (only a proportion of which would be the claimants as I assume the landowner would be entitled to part of the hourly tariff). The £100.00 charge, is not proportional in any way to the loss suffered, it equates to the cost of over 3 days parking (76 hours) this is clearly an unenforceable contract term as “PPC” is seeking to impose a penalty charge in compensation that is vastly disproportionate to the hourly parking tariff of £1.30. The defendant volunteered to compensate “PPC” for their loss of income by sending a cheque for a sum in excess of the actual cost of parking, in full and final settlement of this matter. They made the illogical decision to refuse  and made it clear that they would not communicate with the defendant further on a possible solution.

 

The above statements are correct and due to the above facts I would ask for the court to dismiss the claimants’ case.