County court claim defence parking

EdKing

Dear all, 
a quick one I think please, I am in the process of completing the defence doc with section 18, description of events etc, my question is : as in this case the set up is a ANPR camera and a ticket machine that issues no ticket and you put in your car reg but get not ticket or receipt or prove of purchase for the £2.50 cost ( paid cash)  so I cannot prove that I have paid, do I leave that in ? in addition to the fact there is no lighting or clear signage I have a picture which shows this ( which in the defence doc there is obviously a lot of good info on ) hope that makes sense all advise and thoughts welcome as always, thank you

Coupon-mad

Have you added what I told you to add to the defence about the two claims? I gave you a link to the words.  That needs to go in as the first or second point at the top and change all the numbering accordingly.

 in this case the set up is a ANPR camera and a ticket machine that issues no ticket and you put in your car reg but get not ticket or receipt or prove of purchase for the £2.50 cost ( paid cash)  so I cannot prove that I have paid, do I leave that in ?

Of course.   You say what the Defendant did, and if you were driving, admit it and remove my template post #17 and replace it (obviously) with the facts about what happened, not copying my stuff about 'how many drivers drive the car' and POFA stuff, not if you were driving...

This is their case to prove.  Not your case to prove. 

You are going to be the ONLY true witness (in the real sense, that you were there) at the hearing, so you tell the truth and certainly say so, if the Defendant DID pay and display. 

And you are not putting evidence in yet, so no photos of course with a defence.  But you know that from the NEWBIES thread section under the red heading IMPORTANT - KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN'.

AND - please now make a real difference - A TASK FOR SEPTEMBER.

The Government is (this month only) consulting about a new statutory code of practice (CoP) and framework to rein in the rogue parking firms.  Read and comment on the draft CoP proposal and the enforcement framework consultation, and get everyone you know to do the same.

You will need to register to comment on the CoP and enter an occupation even if you are retired or a homemaker, but otherwise it is easy to navigate, and comment upon each section/subsection individually. You can save comments to edit later and or submit comments once you are happy with them.

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2020-00193#/section

You do not need to register to comment on the enforcement framework which can be found here. It has a link on page 5 to make comments.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/913272/Code_Enforcement_Framework_consultation.pdf

At the very least, we say the parking charge level should be £50/£25 or higher level £70/£35, as per Council PCNs in E&W.  

And we say the added fake 'debt recovery' costs are just double counting the cost of letters, and MUST GO because that is unfair and illegal.

Please be heard.  You can bet the hundreds of PPCs will be commenting.

No apologies for repeating this vital 'call for action' to consumers, on every thread this month!

EdKing

Many thanks for the continued advice,

so far I have as below, I'm not sure if its rubbish ( at least the bits I have written) I would also add as the 3 claims involves several alleged offences with two different cars both of which I am not the only driver, I assume there is no issue with on the other two claims when I know I was the driver in noting that in those defences? as here below I have not as I was not driving, regardless I know my partner bought a ticket as a regular user of the car park. As such I have used the language around not being the only driver in this first defence. Hope that makes sense.. and hopefully am getting there I am aiming to submit by the end of the week. Any thoughts comments welcome as ever. 

17.     The Court is invited to take note that the Claimant has issued a further two claims, number XXXXXXXX and number XXXXX, against the Defendant with substantially identical particulars, for the same cause of action. The issuing of three separate claims, by the same Claimant and for essentially the same cause of action, is an abuse of the civil litigation process. The long-established case law in Henderson -v- Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313, and more recent authorities, establishes the principle that when a matter becomes the subject of litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case. The Court is invited to consolidate the three claims to be determined together, and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant.

18.  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  a year 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.

19.  The method of payment is by cash and offers no printed ticket or option of receipt for the cost of parking for £2.50 for the day.

Defence then follows on to set template language around signs etc 

Umkomaas

I would also add as the 3 claims involves several alleged offences with two different cars both of which I am not the only driver, I assume there is no issue with on the other two claims when I know I was the driver in noting that in those defences? 

If the NtKs are PoFA-compliant then who was or wasn't the driver is rather academic as the PPC can hold the keeper liable. Going off down the cul-de-sac of 'prove who the driver was' is a distraction. But you haven't told us whether the NtKs are compliant or not, and we haven't seen a copy - you could scan one and upload it (redact personal identifying detail, but leave in dates). Show us the one with the greatest number of days between the incident date and the date of sending the NtK. 

When you say there are 'several alleged offences', just how many individual incidents are there?  PS - they are not 'offences', is that your term, or theirs?

Coupon-mad

Move this - below - up to replace the (now redundant - I will be changing it) template point (4 or 5, maybe?) that says that it's a waste of court time to hear this case and it should be struck out.  That is no longer needed because Judges are scared to strike out now, following the Semark-Jullien appeal (damp squib but held that striking out is 'draconian' in these circumstances).


 ''The Court is invited to take note that the Claimant has issued a further two claims, number XXXXXXXX and number XXXXX, against the Defendant with substantially identical particulars, for the same cause of action. The issuing of three separate claims, by the same Claimant and for essentially the same cause of action, is an abuse of the civil litigation process. The long-established case law in Henderson -v- Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313, and more recent authorities, establishes the principle that when a matter becomes the subject of litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case. The Court is invited to consolidate the three claims to be determined together, and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant.''


Then make #17 some narrative saying what sort of car park it is (pay & display near shops, station, what, and you family use it fairly regularly?) and although there is no evidence of who was driving, the drivers in your family always pay and have records of payments made that will be later provided in evidence, to show this is not a case of non-payers, whoever the driver was. As such,  as registered keeper, the Defendant denies any breach and if there was perhaps a delay in paying then not only have they not pleaded it in the generic Particulars of Claim, but also this would suggest that 'not paying within a timeframe that the Claimants would have liked' (if that is the allegation - the Defendant is having to guess) would in fact be punitive, and have no legitimate interest to support a charge far higher than the tariff paid.  Further, any delay (or keypad VRM error?  again, this is guesswork) is more likely to be caused by the old PDT machines and not by a driver used to the car park and who knows and always keyed in the correct VRM.

EdKing

thank you both for the advice I have submitted by defence with all these points incorporated into into it. 

KeithP

EdKing said:

thank you both for the advice I have submitted by defence with all these points incorporated into into it. 

Hopefully you did that before Monday 5th October.

EdKing

yes we did thank you,  may I ask please:
I recieved 3 separate N180 forms I will fill out and send them back, 

should I select the option of using mediation service or no?
second question pls , I requested that the 3 claims be consolidated, I guess this didn't happen should I write to the court email and request this again?
thanks again for any comments suggestions.

KeithP

The NEWBIES thread tells you exactly how to answer every question on your DQ.

Return all three to the CCBC in the same manner and to the same email address that you sent your Defence(s).
Send copies to the Claimant too.

In the covering emails, again request that the claims be consolidated.

Coupon-mad

should I select the option of using mediation service or no?

I am not going to answer because this is doing you no favours.  This is already answered tin the NEWBIES thread under the red heading: 'IMPORTANT - KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN' and if you stray away from reading the NEWBIES thread at each stage, you are going dangerously off piste.

You should be asking at every stage for consolidation.  Obviously no-one at the CCBC was going to do that...far too early to expect it.