Newbie =DCB Legal Letter of Claim/ Claim Form Help. From First Parking LLP

newbie772

Redx said:

For 3) check if the correct name and address are on that NTK PCN above , if they are correct then I fail to see the point of 3 , which is a statement , not a Defence , so more useful at the WS stage in several months time !

I did tell you that the procedure is to obtain the keeper details and use the details when sending a PCN.  Non receipt is no defence to a claim where the claimant has followed procedures. The Arsene Wenger defence of " I did not see it " is of no assistance at all. Non receipt is irrelevant , what is relevant is if they obtained keeper details within 6 months from the DVLA , followed by POFA

3 should give the judge details , like the response to the  POC , the type of car park , permit etc , remember that a judge is unlikely to know the details

The correct name and address are on the NTK PCN. 
I was just using the template shown in the Newbies section. I'm really lost at this stage. What would you suggest to write in the defence. We're not sure what to write as it was over 2 years ago. The only thing we know is that we weren't aware that you couldn't park along the sides.

Redx

A private parking charge notice is not a fine , or a penalty , they are legal terms which do not apply. People misuse those words daily , with no regards for the legalities

A private PCN is an Invoice , like you get from a shop or a builder , subject to the same civil laws , hence the comment of , it's not a fine , never is , never can be , the claimants are actually legally barred from using that word or implying that word

It is incorrect use of the English language and should be avoided

It is never too late to complain to your local MP , or the landowner for that matter

D_P_Dance

Indeed they are seeking monetary compensation for the harm they allege they suffered at your hands.

newbie772

Redx said:

A private parking charge notice is not a fine , or a penalty , they are legal terms which do not apply. People misuse those words daily , with no regards for the legalities

A private PCN is an Invoice , like you get from a shop or a builder , subject to the same civil laws , hence the comment of , it's not a fine , never is , never can be , the claimants are actually legally barred from using that word or implying that word

It is incorrect use of the English language and should be avoided

It is never too late to complain to your local MP , or the landowner for that matter

Okay, thank you guys for clearing that up. We will email a complaint to our local MP about the PCN.
In regards to the defence, could anyone offer any advice on what to include in it. This PCN was a University fine from 2 years ago, so we're not sure what points we can use as a defence, other than the signs for parking were unclear and only on the back row of the car park, not the front 2 and that we did have a permit to be there

Redx

Signage is already included in the template defence and 90% is already written for you , meaning that all you have to alter is 2 paragraphs , where number 2 is relatively straightforward and 3 needs your work

KeithP

newbie772 said:

Redx said:

A private parking charge notice is not a fine , or a penalty , they are legal terms which do not apply. People misuse those words daily , with no regards for the legalities

A private PCN is an Invoice , like you get from a shop or a builder , subject to the same civil laws , hence the comment of , it's not a fine , never is , never can be , the claimants are actually legally barred from using that word or implying that word

It is incorrect use of the English language and should be avoided

It is never too late to complain to your local MP , or the landowner for that matter

Okay, thank you guys for clearing that up. We will email a complaint to our local MP about the PCN.
In regards to the defence, could anyone offer any advice on what to include in it. This PCN was a University fine from 2 years ago, so we're not sure what points we can use as a defence, other than the signs for parking were unclear and only on the back row of the car park, not the front 2 and that we did have a permit to be there

You have responded to a detailed explanation of why it isn't a fine and then, just two lines later, state...

This PCN was a University fine from 2 years ago...

Perhaps you meant to say... this was from a fine university.  

Covid_Vaccinator

@newbie772
Have you considered discussing with the students union & university newspaper? Could do this anonymously. Doesn't look great on the university of someone that they are employing is behaving inappropriately towards their students!

Best wishes,

newbie772

Covid_Vaccinator said:

@newbie772
Have you considered discussing with the students union & university newspaper? Could do this anonymously. Doesn't look great on the university of someone that they are employing is behaving inappropriately towards their students!

Best wishes,

Apologies for the late reply. We have not considered discussing with the union as the student graduated 2 years ago.

newbie772

KeithP said:

newbie772 said:

Redx said:

A private parking charge notice is not a fine , or a penalty , they are legal terms which do not apply. People misuse those words daily , with no regards for the legalities

A private PCN is an Invoice , like you get from a shop or a builder , subject to the same civil laws , hence the comment of , it's not a fine , never is , never can be , the claimants are actually legally barred from using that word or implying that word

It is incorrect use of the English language and should be avoided

It is never too late to complain to your local MP , or the landowner for that matter

Okay, thank you guys for clearing that up. We will email a complaint to our local MP about the PCN.
In regards to the defence, could anyone offer any advice on what to include in it. This PCN was a University fine from 2 years ago, so we're not sure what points we can use as a defence, other than the signs for parking were unclear and only on the back row of the car park, not the front 2 and that we did have a permit to be there

You have responded to a detailed explanation of why it isn't a fine and then, just two lines later, state...

This PCN was a University fine from 2 years ago...

Perhaps you meant to say... this was from a fine university.  

Correct . My mistake.

newbie772

Hello everyone. Apologies for the late update. We have searched a few relevant threads relating to a similar situation and have some points for the defence. 

3.

(1) The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full
defence. In particular:
1. The Claimant has not explained or shown photographic evidence of how the car was “not within bay markings”.
2. The Claimant has not clearly disclosed the specific alleged car park of the incident as the University has many.
3. The Claimant has given no indication of how the greatly increased outstanding amount and costs came to be from the original alleged offence.

(2) The Claimant does not own the land therefore, there is reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and have no locus standing to bring this case.
1. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
2. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question.
3. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge.

(3) The Claimants Letter before Action did not comply with the Practice direction on pre-action conduct. The Letter before Action can be seen to miss the following information
a) A clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.
b) A list of the relevant documents on which your client intends to rely, unless I am to assume they will be relying on no documents.

(4) The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been
calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £60 to (the figure specified over £200). This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and a blatant attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

(5) The signage was inadequate and non-existent for some car park locations to form a contract with the motorist.
1. The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is illegible from the driver’s seat due to size, the sparsity and often foliage blocking the sign itself in some locations after further inspection. This is as well as the sporadic and random location of said signage.
2. The BPA code of practice states: ‘There will be a sign at the entrance to the car park that
will explain in the broadest terms that the car park is private land and that it is managed by an AOS operator’. The signage does not mention any details of parking must be “within bay markings”.
3. In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.

(6) The driver did not enter any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

(7) The Claimant has sent a bombardment of threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a ‘local’ recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be
calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges with no evidence of how this extra  charge has been calculated. No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs