Claim for a PCN from 2016 lol

Coupon-mad

That statement of truth is a year out of date, almost.  You need to re-read the NEWBIES thread about defences and that statement of truth.

Allygood100

  this my defence, forgive the numbering every time i try to past in here it does this!! please if if you see anything Ive missed i am all ears.

1. 1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  
   2. 1. The allegation appears to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper 'not purchasing the appropriate parking time' or the register keeper over staying or the driver not being a patron of Moto Pease pottage services A23.  
   3. The Defendant contacted the management of the services and they stated that they wish this charge to be cancelled and do not support it, as the Defendant is a private hire driver and as such, a regular authorised visitor who should be on the site's ''white list''. Thus, there is no legitimate interest or commercial justification possible for this charge, and (as was discussed in the Beavis case) here the penalty rule remains engaged.  
   4. The Defendant denies that the Claimant has the capacity in accordance with the British Parking Association Code of Practice Para 7.3 to take legal action.  The Defendant further asserts that the Principal has instructed the Claimant to cancel the Parking Notice.  
   5. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.   
   6. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.  
   7. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.   
   8. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 
   9. This case is different to Beavis, furthermore the patrons wants the whole claim cancelled and the defendant will provide prove in due time. So there are no facts that save this from being struck out as punitive and unconscionable, and the penalty rule mentioned in Beavis remains engaged on this occasion, with no support from the landowner and no deterrent value or commercial justification, and a complete lack of clear signs inside and out to draw attention to some sort of keypad/ipad, there is no legitimate interest  that could allow this claimant to charge more than could the normal damages that only a landowner could claim if applicable.  
   10. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £70, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.  
   11. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.  
   12. I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.  

Coupon-mad

Interesting to see a shorter defence but it's fine under the circumstances and is based on a concise one by bargepole.  And anyway MOTO want it cancelled so hopefully this is just belt & braces to be sure you don't fall between the cracks of a court deadline.

1505grandad

"i.  This case is different to Beavis, furthermore the (patrons) wants the whole claim cancelled and the defendant will provide prove in due time."

Should (this) be principal?  -  a patron is a customer (you).

Allygood100

https://www.dropbox.com/s/o3l0cb4g9wc48lh/CCBC - Filing your Electronic Court documents correctly.pdf?dl=0

Allygood100

Sent a SAR to the P.C and to dcb leaglas. The first haven't replied tge latter sent me the SAR with only my name, d.o.b, address and vehicle reg. lol.
When checking on CP plus website I can see the parking charge but they don't display any photos. Can I assume that after 5 years they might have lost or deleted it?
Im sure I will have the chance to find that out once thier evidence.

Fruitcake

You can't assume anything. You can hope they have lost the original NTK and hope they don't include it in their WS.

Since you know an NTK existed, you can complain to the scammers if they don't include the NTK that they have not sent or all personal data that they know they hold about you, so therefore you require them to supply everything requested within 7 days. Warn them that if they fail to do so, you will complain to the ICO. Make sure you follow through with the complaint and include any ICO/DPA/GDPR failures and withholding of evidence in your WS.

The same applies if the scammers don't reply to your SAQR within 30 days. Normally sending an SAR to the scamlicitors is pointless.

Allygood100

Good day everyone. Claim discontinued,  looks like the word I had with the manager at the services paid off (had to chase them and perss on it couple of times) and I don't think PC had any digital proves after 5 years and they've tried to trick me to sending then a copy of the NTK which I haven't or going to entertain.
Anyways would like to thank everyone on here again . You're all amazing

Le_Kirk

Good result!

Coupon-mad

Yay, thanks to MOTO getting royally fed up with this I expect, another CP PLUS & DCB LEGAL one bites the dust!