Claim form from Bank Park Management Ltd

mks27

Hi everyone,
My mum received a claim from Bank park last week and I'm helping her with the defence (we live together so are working on the defence together - I'm just posting on the forum as I'm a little more technologically savvy!).
The issue date on the claim is 08/07/2020 and we submitted the AoS on MCOL on the 13/07/2020.

As for the defence, I've found the template (Private parking charge - abuse of process defence.docx) from one of the threads which was really useful. I've replaced all of the red bits with the detail of our case and just wanted a little bit of help with the evidence points #17 and #18. 

Details: We hadn't received any letters/charges before the claim form arrived last week, my mum moved house at the start of July and informed DVLA (the claim said the PCN was issued 24/07/2019) so we've assumed the letters have gone to the old house through no fault of our own. The particulars say "the vehicle was parked in breach of the terms on Cs signs" which is so vague and "The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not". If my mum didn't receive any letters then how would she have agreed to pay? Is this enough to constitute a defence?

We've got points 17 and 18 are currently. The rest of the defence is as per the template (with details filled in) so I don't think I need to send that across:

17.      The Defendant is not the only driver of this vehicle and the Particulars of Claim offer little to shed light on the alleged breach, which relates to an unremarkable date some time ago.  It is not established thus far, whether there was a single parking event, or whether the vehicle was caught by predatory ticketing and/or by using unsynchronised timings and camera evidence to suggest a contravention.  A compliant Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’) was not properly served in strict accordance with section 8 or 9 (as the case may be) of the POFA.

 

18.       The defendant moved property on XX/07/2019 and informed the DVLA of their new address promptly. The defendant has not received any correspondence from the claimant at their new address and it’s therefore impossible to know of the circumstances behind the Particulars of Claim offer and for the defendant to have agreed to pay within 28 days. From memory, the defendant used the car park on XX/07/2019, obtained a ticket and left before the allotted time paid for.  

Is someone able to critique this?

Thanks so much!

KeithP

mks27 said:

The issue date on the claim is 08/07/2020 and we submitted the AoS on MCOL on the 13/07/2020.

With a Claim Issue Date of 8th July, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 10th August 2020 to file your Defence.

That's nearly four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, and it is good to see that you aren't leaving it to the last minute.

To file a Defence, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Coupon-mad

The particulars say "the vehicle was parked in breach of the terms on Cs signs" which is so vague and "The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not".

Please can people stop picking up on this sentence...we answer that about once a week. All it means is the driver 'agreed' to pay because they are saying there were some clear signs up and this 'agreed contract' was formed that way.  Not 'agreed' in any other sense.   

If you are saying this (and remove the bit crossed out - the POC is not an 'offer'):

The defendant has not received any correspondence from the claimant at their new address and it’s therefore impossible to know of the circumstances behind the Particulars of Claim. offer and for the defendant to have agreed to pay within 28 days. From memory, the defendant used the car park on XX/07/2019, obtained a ticket and left before the allotted time paid for. The Claimant is put to strict proof from their pay and display machine records that a valid payment was not made for the car (or a close match VRM payment record since their machines at the location are old and faded, with sticky keys that can cause a data malfunction).  

Only say the above if it was a payment at a machine.  If it was an app payment, the D will have proof?

Then you need to remove this because the D has admitted to driving, so the fact there are several drivers is unhelpful and so it the stuff about not serving a NTK:

17.      The Defendant is not the only driver of this vehicle and the Particulars of Claim offer little to shed light on the alleged breach, which relates to an unremarkable date some time ago.  It is not established thus far, whether there was a single parking event, or whether the vehicle was caught by predatory ticketing and/or by using unsynchronised timings and camera evidence to suggest a contravention, or that the Claimant has either not allowed a sufficient grace period after paid-for time, or has not taken reasonable steps to check to match the payment that was likely made for this vehicle, if it was parked and left at the location.  The stylised particulars of claim and lack of any letters being served to the Defendant, and the Claimaint's failure to follow the pre-action protocol for debt claims and show a copy of the alleged contract (the signs) or any photos or other evidence to the Defendant with a Letter before Claim, mean the Defendant is defending this case blind. 
A compliant Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’) was not properly served in strict accordance with section 8 or 9 (as the case may be) of the POFA.

mks27

Please can people stop picking up on this sentence...we answer that about once a week. All it means is the driver 'agreed' to pay because they are saying there were some clear signs up and this 'agreed contract' was formed that way.  Not 'agreed' in any other sense.   

Sorry about that, I have spent the last week trawling through the threads but must have missed that - thanks for explaining Coupon-mad!

What you've written makes total sense, the payment wasn't by app so there unfortunately no proof. I'll use your amendments. Really helpful  - thankyou!

D_P_Dance

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP., it can cause the scammer extra costs, and in some cases, cancellation. 

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 later this year,

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these companies, 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.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/of these Private Parking Companies.