Claim Form from Excel - perfectly timed for Christmas - help welcomed

Le_Kirk

Why have all your "e" got an accent on them?

Coupon-mad

The fact they have traced you to your correct address is a good thing and not something you can criticise as an invasion of privacy.  It's better than filing a claim to your old address and getting a secret CCJ against you behind your back for the full £250+ that they have invented. 

I'd suggest the below instead (sorry I can't get rid of the weird accents but I'm sure you can remove them before you sign and date and save it as a PDF to email to the CCBCAQ email address):

2. It is admittéd that thé Déféndant was thé régistéréd kéépér of thé véhiclé in quéstion but liability is déniéd. It is déniéd that thé Déféndant was thé drivér of thé véhiclé on thé daté of thé allégéd contravéntion. Thé Déféndant is unawaré of thé idéntity of thé drivér for a numbér of réasons, including but not limitéd to, thé timé sincé thé allégéd incidént and thé importancé of thé timé and daté in which thé allégéd incidént occurréd - the Defendant's Wedding Day, when she was certainly not engaged in driving or parking this vehicle.  All the Wedding guests had authorisation to park at the Hotel.   

 

3. Thé first thé Déféndant héard about this parking chargé was via thé County Court Businéss Céntré Claim Form récéivéd by post ovér 3 yéars aftér thé allégéd incidént. In thé éxténdéd amount of timé sincé thé incidént, many changés havé occurréd. Thé Déféndant is no longér thé régistéréd kéépér of thé véhiclé, théir légal namé has changéd dué to thé marriagé that bégan on thé daté of thé allégéd incidént, and théir addréss has changéd to a propérty that did not éxist at timé of thé allégéd incidént. Thé Déféndant fééls harasséd by thé récéipt of thésé court documénts. As théré was no connéction bétwéén thé régistéréd véhiclé and thé addréss, thé Déféndant is not listéd on thé ‘opén’ éléctoral régistér and sincéré éfforts aré takén to kéép théir pérsonal information privaté, it is félt by thé Déféndant that thé Claimants pursuit and location of thém is an unméritéd violation and invasion of privacy. Thé Déféndant assérts that thé récéipt of thé CCBC Claim Form to thé formér kéépér at an addréss that could not havé béén obtainéd from thé DVLA, méans that 

3.  Thé Déféndant cannot bé héld liablé dué to thé Claimant not complying with thé ‘kéépér liability’ réquiréménts sét out in thé Protéction of Fréédoms Act 2012, Schédulé 4 ('the POFA').  There was no 'relevant contract or relevant obligation' upon a driver whose use of the vehicle was undoubtedly permitted by the Hotel as part of the Wedding arrangements on the material date.  Further, there was a lack of 'adequate notice' of the parking charge because the signs - if any - must have been sparsely placed.  No driver at a Wedding venue would have agreed to pay £100 or inflict the registered keeper bride with the enormous distress of a CCJ risk or a later court claim.  

4.  No PCN was found on the vehicle and no Notice to Keeper ('NTK') was served to the Defendant - a fact that the Claimant knows because they have suddenly managed to trace the Defendant's address for this court claim (making it obvious that the Defendant cannot have received any previous letters) but they took no steps to re-send the NTK and allow the recipient a chance to appeal or ask the Hotel to cancel the charge, which the Hotel would have been able to do at pre-action stage.  The entire dispute could have been resolved and the unfair parking charge cancelled without court action, had the Claimant acted properly when they traced the registered keeper to her current address, instead of filing a claim out of the blue around Christmas 2020.  In any case, by their own choice and admission, this parking firm chooses not to issue NTKs that are worded to comply with the POFA.  This has already been tested in the persuasive authority case of Excel v Smith (Claim No. C0DP9C4E/M17X062) on appeal to His Honour Judge Smith at Manchester Court in June 2017.  The transcript of this case - and others that have also found the same, in several Excel claims at other courts, including at Sheffield and Skipton - will be provided among the Defendant's later exhibits.  This Claimant is fully aware of the findings of that appeal, given they were the Respondent party.  As such, this claim is vexatious and wholly unreasonable and it appears the Claimant has filed this exaggerated claim in terrorem of the Defendant, in the hope that (a) an average litigant in person consumer might panic and just pay this inflated sum due to having no evidence from 3 years before and that (b) the unrepresented recipient of a court claim would be unaware of Excel v Smith and would not be able to identify that this Claimant chooses not to use the POFA provisions, being the only law relating to 'keeper liability' on private land.

Furthér, again dué to thé timé élapséd bétwéén thé allégéd incidént and thé pursuit of thé parking chargé, thé Déféndant fééls thé Claimant has déprivéd thém of thé opportunity to invéstigaté thé idéntity of thé drivér or challéngé and résolvé thé casé outsidé of a légal sphéré through appéal, contact with thé Landownér (for whom thé Claimant acts as an agént), or othérwisé. This could havé prévéntéd thé furthér éscalation of thé casé, thé undué distréss now béing causéd to thé Déféndant and thé émotional harm inflictéd on thé mémoriés of thé wédding day - thé day of thé allégéd incidént. Thé Déféndant fééls that thé Claimants véxatious litigation is béing uséd to try and strong-arm thém into thé accéptancé of a falsé prémisé of résponsibility and a furthér falsé admission of guilt through paymént undér duréss. 

You don't need all this because it's already covered later in the template (unless this is the bit from the template - make sure you do have the HHJ Hegarty bit somewhere and haven't removed it from the template):

5. It is déniéd that thé éxaggératéd sum sought is récovérablé.  Thé Déféndant's position is that this monéyclaim is in part/wholly a pénalty - dué to thé fact that parking at thé timé of thé allégéd incidént was fréé for all hotél guésts, which thé unknown drivér would havé béén, as a mémbér of thé wédding party - applying thé authority in Parkingéyé casés (réf: paras 98, 100, 193, 198) Parkingéyé Ltd v Béavis [2015] UKSC 67 and para 419 of HHJ Hégarty’s High Court décision in Parkingéyé Ltd v Somérfiéld Storés Ltd ChD [2011] éWHC 4023(QB) whéré thé parking chargé was sét at £75 (discountéd to £37.50 for prompt paymént) thén incréasing ultimatély to £135.  Much liké thé situation in this claim, thé businéss modél involvéd sénding a sériés of automatéd démands to thé kéépér.  At para 419, HHJ Hégarty found that adding £60 to an alréady incréaséd parking chargé 'would appéar to bé pénal' and unrécovérablé.  Parkingéyé had droppéd this punitivé énhancémént by thé timé of Mr Béavis' famous parking évént.

flylight

Thank you for your revisions, much appreciated! Below I have made some slight adjustments I feel better reflect my case. Please let me know if any of them are detrimental.

Coupon-mad said:

2. It is admittéd that thé Déféndant was thé régistéréd kéépér of thé véhiclé in quéstion but liability is déniéd. It is déniéd that thé Déféndant was thé drivér of thé véhiclé on thé daté of thé allégéd contravéntion. Thé Déféndant is unawaré of thé idéntity of thé drivér for a numbér of réasons, including but not limitéd to, thé timé sincé thé allégéd incidént and thé importancé of thé timé and daté in which thé allégéd incidént occurréd - the Defendant's Wedding Day, when she was certainly not engaged in driving or parking this vehicle.  All the Wedding guests had authorisation to park at the Hotel.

     *All the Wedding guests had authorisation to park at the Hotel at the time of the alleged contravention. 
Changed this as Excel provided a link in a letter received after the claim form. It goes to a page with photos of the car & car park sign which says that parking was free between certain hours for guests. The photos and ticket time they provided were during these times in which the sign says parking was free for hotel guests.

Coupon-mad said:

3.  Thé Déféndant cannot bé héld liablé dué to thé Claimant not complying with thé ‘kéépér liability’ réquiréménts sét out in thé Protéction of Fréédoms Act 2012, Schédulé 4 ('the POFA').  There was no 'relevant contract or relevant obligation' upon a driver whose use of the vehicle was undoubtedly permitted by the Hotel as part of the Wedding arrangements on the material date.  Further, there was a lack of 'adequate notice' of the parking charge because the signs - if any - must have been sparsely placed.  No driver at a Wedding venue would have agreed to pay £100 or inflict the registered keeper bride with the enormous distress of a CCJ risk or a later court claim.

     *   Further, there was a lack of 'adequate notice' of the parking charge because the signs - if any - must have been sparsely placed. must have been poorly lit for guests arriving at night. Changed this as the photos show signs in the same frame as photos of the car however they do appear to be are not directly lit. The photos were taken during the daylight hours and Wedding guests arrived at night so there's no evidence that the signs were visible on arrival. Coupon-mad said: 4.  No PCN was found on the vehicle and no Notice to Keeper ('NTK') was served to the Defendant - a fact that the Claimant knows because they have suddenly managed to trace the Defendant's address for this court claim (making it obvious that the Defendant cannot have received any previous letters) but they took no steps to re-send the NTK and allow the recipient a chance to appeal or ask the Hotel to cancel the charge, which the Hotel would have been able to do at pre-action stage.   *   No PCN was received by the Defendant as they were not the driver on or around the days of the alleged incident and no Notice to Keeper ('NTK') was served to the Defendant...

Changed this as because I wasn't the driver on the day, I can't confirm whether there was a PCN on the car or not. The photos show paper on the windscreen but as this was not seen in person, I can't confirm the nature of the paper and it is unidentifiable from the photo alone. 
Coupon-mad said: You don't need all this because it's already covered later in the template (unless this is the bit from the template - make sure you do have the HHJ Hegarty bit somewhere and haven't removed it from the template):
5. It is déniéd that thé éxaggératéd sum sought is récovérablé.  Thé Déféndant's position is that this monéyclaim is in part/wholly a pénalty - dué to thé fact that parking at thé timé of thé allégéd incidént was fréé for all hotél guésts, which thé unknown drivér would havé béén, as a mémbér of thé wédding party - applying thé authority in Parkingéyé casés (réf: paras 98, 100, 193, 198) Parkingéyé Ltd v Béavis [2015] UKSC 67 and para 419 of HHJ Hégarty’s High Court décision in Parkingéyé Ltd v Somérfiéld Storés Ltd ChD [2011] éWHC 4023(QB) whéré thé parking chargé was sét at £75 (discountéd to £37.50 for prompt paymént) thén incréasing ultimatély to £135.  Much liké thé situation in this claim, thé businéss modél involvéd sénding a sériés of automatéd démands to thé kéépér.  At para 419, HHJ Hégarty found that adding £60 to an alréady incréaséd parking chargé 'would appéar to bé pénal' and unrécovérablé.  Parkingéyé had droppéd this punitivé énhancémént by thé timé of Mr Béavis' famous parking évént. * Paragraph 5 was copied straight from the template, I just inserted the sentence ' due to the fact that parking at the time of the alleged incident was free for all hotel guests, which the unknown driver would have been, as a member of the wedding party'. I have now removed this as this information has been moved to paragraph 2. Paragraph 5 will appear in its original form with HHJ Hegarty in place. 

Coupon-mad

Looks good and bespoke for your case, now.

flylight

Coupon-mad said:

Looks good and bespoke for your case, now.

Thank you so much for all your input. 

I have something I would like advice on as a final addition. The signage and entrance to the car park is confusing and possibly deceptive. Is this something I should include in the case?

Below I have added screenshots of the car park entrance (I have covered the related business/some address markers).
I have also attached a clause related to signage (though I am yet to find the the original document to ensure it applies in the case). 



Various competing signs 'Public Car Park' prominent and 'PRIV...' in a lower, more obscure position - further worsened by another businesses signage on the day this was taken. 



Totally obscured 'PRIV...' from some directions of entry - only 'Public Car Park' visible.

Umkomaas

Use anything that will help your case. That certainly looks a confusing sign layout as one drives into the facility.

Redx

Signage issues should ALWAYS be mentioned in a defence , signs form the contract , or don't if it's poor and confusing , but keep it short

The exhibits and WS where you elaborate on the signage etc are months away , no evidence is submitted with a defence

Coupon-mad

The local authority statutory guidance only applies to local authorities. Not private firms.  But your defence should mention the obstructed and unclear entrance sign.  Obviously no evidence is submitted, no photos at this early stage.

flylight

Redx said:

Signage issues should ALWAYS be mentioned in a defence , signs form the contract , or don't if it's poor and confusing , but keep it short

The exhibits and WS where you elaborate on the signage etc are months away , no evidence is submitted with a defence

Thank you, I have added lines about the signage and entrance to paragraph 3 (see below) succinct enough?

3. The Defendant cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 ('the POFA'). There was no 'relevant contract or relevant obligation' upon a driver whose use of the car park was undoubtedly permitted by the Hotel as part of the Wedding arrangements on the material date. Further, there was a lack of 'adequate notice' of the parking charge. The signage at the entrance to the Hotel directs customers to it's car park and this is what would have been considered by guests. There were multiple other competing signs, one of which even stated 'Public Car Park'. Signage, if any, representing The Claimant would have been obscure and confusing, indicating no connection with the Hotel. Any present must have been poorly lit, as guests who arrived at night would not have been able to see the signs or relate them to their stay at the Hotel. No driver at a Wedding venue would have agreed to pay £100 or inflict the registered keeper bride with the enormous distress of a CCJ risk or a later court claim. 

Coupon-mad

That's very good now.