Money Claim - Going Court for Private Parking PCN

bergkamp10

KeithP said:

bergkamp10 said:

KeithP said:

bergkamp10 said:

To start with, a friend has received a Money Claim letter from Civil Enforcement Ltd.

On Jan 29, 2021 he received a Money Claim letter.

On February 16 he responded on the Money Claim website and acknowledged service and the intent to defend the claim.

Firstly, are we to assume that 'a Money Claim letter' is actually a County Court Claim?

You say it was received on 29th January, but what is the Issue Date on that Claim Form? 

My apologies, I mistyped. I meant the ticket was issued on Jan 29th, he responded on Feb 16th.

Come on! Get a grip! A ticket was issued on 29th January?? No it wasn't.
It really is important to get these things right now that you are getting closer to the sharp end.

bergkamp10 said:

Here is the information on the MCOL history.
A claim was issued against you on 29/01/2021
Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 16/02/2021 at 12:00:10
Your acknowledgment of service was received on 16/02/2021 at 14:05:18

With a Claim Issue Date of 29th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 3rd March 2021 to file your Defence.

Less than two days to go.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Sorry, the Claim Form was issued on Jan 29th. Apologies.

Edit: thank you. Yes, I have read that thread as well as the template earlier today before I posted the thread.

KeithP

The first para of CPR 31 states:

Scope of this Part
31.1
(1) This Part sets out rules about the disclosure and inspection of documents.
(2) This Part applies to all claims except a claim on the small claims track.

Note the words "except a claim on the small claims track".

bergkamp10

KeithP said:

The first para of CPR 31 states:

Scope of this Part
31.1
(1) This Part sets out rules about the disclosure and inspection of documents.
(2) This Part applies to all claims except a claim on the small claims track.

Note the words "except a claim on the small claims track".

Thanks KeithP. I'm not sure. I was just advised to do so on pepipoo. I think the reason is to request the information on the particulars of the case, most importantly the information on the machine logs on the day of the as he is adamant that he's paid for the ticket. I also think the reason that it's possible point 31.1(2) may not be valid is because the case hasn't been assigned a track yet, although I am not 100%.

Umkomaas

The problem with posting on two forums is that you don't get twice the advice, just twice the confusion. Adding in that you're a third party to the event gives even more potential for things deviating. 

bergkamp10

Yeah you're right. I'll be continuing this case on here. Thanks.

nosferatu1001

If youre given a reference then follow it and read it. While this claim isnt YET on the small claims track, it WILL be. The C wil state as such, and it will be no benefit to y our friend. 
File the defence today

bergkamp10

nosferatu1001 said:

If youre given a reference then follow it and read it. While this claim isnt YET on the small claims track, it WILL be. The C wil state as such, and it will be no benefit to y our friend. 
File the defence today

Thanks. It's sent now. We'll see what comes of it. I think however we really do need to see the logs on the parking machine as well as the evidence they used for their statement of particulars as that will show whether they have any right to bring this case up in the first place as my friend is 100% sure he paid. How else would we be able to get the following information from CEL:

"1. The Parking Charge Notice and the Notice to Keeper,
2. The Terms and Conditions for the site where the alleged contravention occurred,
3. Copies of the signs that created the alleged contract,
4. A printout of vehicle registrations made through the ticket machine on the date of alleged contravention, and
4. The reasons for the additional costs above the charge of £100"

I will get him to send off the Defence. Is everyone happy with the information we've put in section 2 and 3 that was in the one of my posts on the last page? Does it include everything we'd need to include or shall we include more? Also any need to change any of the information in the other sections of the Defence template.

Fruitcake

If a SAR has not already been sent, then your friend needs to do one now as per the advice in the NEWBIES.

This should flush out the original PCN/NTK and any other information containing his personal data. Ask for near miss machine logs using their fuzzy logic system that can pick out incorrect VRMs that are close to that of the actual vehicle in question. You are not allowed other people's VRMs but they can supply redacted VRMs such as the first or last few digits to see if they are close to your friend's VRM.

He should get images of the signs that formed the alleged contract with the motorist as well as a copy of the landowner contract at the WS/Exhibits stage, but it won't hurt to ask for personal data including the alleged contract between the motorist and scammers.

bergkamp10

Fruitcake said:

If a SAR has not already been sent, then your friend needs to do one now as per the advice in the NEWBIES.

This should flush out the original PCN/NTK and any other information containing his personal data. Ask for near miss machine logs using their fuzzy logic system that can pick out incorrect VRMs that are close to that of the actual vehicle in question. You are not allowed other people's VRMs but they can supply redacted VRMs such as the first or last few digits to see if they are close to your friend's VRM.

He should get images of the signs that formed the alleged contract with the motorist as well as a copy of the landowner contract at the WS/Exhibits stage, but it won't hurt to ask for personal data including the alleged contract between the motorist and scammers.

Thanks for the response fruitcake. SAR has already been sent and received. They shared the PCN/NTK with personal data. The rest of the information has not been included in the SAR as it is not data related to my friend. These pieces of information that have not been included are the VRM machine logs (redacted or otherwise), the pictures of the signs, and the contracts with both the motorist or the land owners.

But I believe the most important bit of information is the machine logs on the day of they claim my friend overstayed (at the least around the hours he was there). That should hopefully clearly show that he'd paid because, like he said, he is adamant that was the only time he'd been there and knows he paid twice (actually leaving class just to add a second payment).

Umkomaas

But I believe the most important bit of information is the machine logs on the day of they claim my friend overstayed (at the least around the hours he was there). That should hopefully clearly show that he'd paid because, like he said, he is adamant that was the only time he'd been there and knows he paid twice (actually leaving class just to add a second payment).

They won't easily or voluntarily hand that over, PPCs rarely do, unless/until it gets to evidence submitted with a Witness Statement.