Private Parking Ticket. Ardpark.

Le_Kirk

OK, probably best in witness statement then as it is not a defence point per se. 

SayNoToPCN

I repeat: it goes in the defence.  It is background. It is relevant as it expands on the abuse part that is covered in the template really nicely, as a company can't charge 60 for passing it to another desk and changing the letterhead. It is most certainly a legal argument as to why the sum claimed is not owed, and is thus a defence. 

nigsy1

Good morning all, this is my latest bash at the defence statement. I was conscious of keeping it short and to the point so have left out the stuff from 'SayNoToPCN' and was thinking of putting in the WS as noted by Le Kirk, any more thoughts on this would be welcome.
Anyway, here we go...

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and was driving on the day with 2 passengers.

 The facts as known to The Defendant-

 3. The defendant entered the car park at 12.17 to drop off the passengers, immediately exited the car park and returned approximately 13 minutes later to pick up the passengers. At no time was the vehicle parked, as noted in Jopson v Homeguard, case number 9GF0A9E, loading and unloading is not parking and therefore no parking ‘contract’, express or implied, was entered into either by agreement or conduct.

4. The defendant notes that Ridings Recoveries is the same company/owned by the claimant passing themselves off as a third party ‘debt collector’ and adding a false sum to the parking charge. 

Umkomaas

Have you received a court claim yet?  Without the Particulars of Claim (PoC), fine-tuning a defence at this stage is somewhat premature. 

nigsy1

Not yet. I've had the pre action letter. Thought I would try and get ahead of game. 

I e mailed BW Legal to say I was seeking debt advice.

They replied on hold until 29 April 

1505grandad

When you do finalise remember in para 2 to deny liability as per template.

 

Coupon-mad

Good spot, no idea why people drop that phrase just because they add they were the driver.  Nothing to do with denying liability for the charge.

slaterio1

Interesting- I have the same issue. Parked in a pub carpark (have done this several times before) and immediately entered the reg details into a unit on the bar. Following getting the first letter from Ardpark of £60, I went to the pub who advised me that numerous people had got the same letter on that day as there had been an issue with the unit on the bar. They subsequently removed this as it was more hassle than it’s worth. Right, the next letter came from Ridings Recoveries and it had gone up to £160. Went back to the pub who told me that others had received letter but ignore it. 2nd letter arrived today advising of outstanding debt and an offer of a repayment plan if I would like this. Planning to ignore this one too but wondering how things panned out on this thread?

Le_Kirk

You might get a response if you send the OP a PM and they will get an e-mail notification and can answer you direct.

Coupon-mad

Ridings Recoveries is a false name used by Ardpark to make you think it's gone to a debt collector.

Have a look at the footer at the bottom of the letter, I think it says this, either that or Companies House shows the same Directors for both firms.

Just in case this results in a court claim (easy to defend but evidence is key) get a signed and dated statement from the pub now about the issues they had, in case the pub shuts down just when you need that evidence or if new staff take over who know nothing about it.