Forbidding signs and pre existing rights

Coupon-mad

No that doesn't help.  Disclosed principal only comes into play if disclosed on the contract (signs, or permit or paperwork about the permit scheme might cut it).

Trainerman

So the saga continues. After the usual (and laughed  at) debt collector stuff, we have a DCB legal LBC. Technically not to me, but exactly the same circumstances and I will be assisting in defence. This arrived yesterday  (tues 15th). So there I was, ready to send SAR to the PPC, and notice of 30 day debt hold to DCB. The LBC is dated 12th January !!

Today, she got the CC Claim form. Obviously, we have had no time at all to respond. Pardon my cynicism but this cannot be an accident. The claim is signed by our usual friend Ms Mia. I do have  the Whistl ref off the envelope but so far this is not helping with date of posting.

So my question is, do any of you know a way that I can handle this, and get some of this time back ? I will automatically complain to the SRA but this will not help practically speaking.

When @KeithP arrives, I would be grateful for advice on timelines for a claim with an issue date of 14th feb.

KeithP

Trainerman said:

When @KeithP arrives, I would be grateful for advice on timelines for a claim with an issue date of 14th feb.

With a Claim Issue Date of 14th February, you have until Monday 7th March to file an Acknowledgment of Service. Do not file an AoS before 19th February, but otherwise there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AoS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 21st March 2022 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service instructions.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Trainerman

Thanks @KeithP. If this goes all the way, it looks like it will be Telford County Court. Does anyone have any info, i.e whether I would be better to try to get elsewhere ? P.M fine if you don't want to be public. Thanks

Coupon-mad

LOL, read the thread and yesterday's outcome by @Eminowa

Trainerman

First draft of defence, using Coupon-Mad's new template. Advice happily received. Thanks folks.

In the County Court

Claim Number :- xxxxxxxx

Between

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    

(Claimant)

and

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(Defendant)

1.   The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that a contract was entered into – by conduct or otherwise- whereby it was agree to pay a 'parking charge'

2.   It Is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied.

3.   The case concerns a plot of land that has been used by the Defendant and other residents for parking for nearly fifty years. This gives rights under The Prescription Act 1832. The Defendant has been parking here for over twenty years, which is a  term that gives direct claims under the above act.

4). The land was sold to new owners and they involved One Parking Solution (OPS) to manage parking. The new owners, OPS and the British Parking Association (BPA) were all contacted in writing more than once  to attest to the Defendant's (and other residents) acquired right to park and this without need of a permit or permission of any kind.

5) As soon as OPS erected signs around the area, the Defendant (and others) wrote and stated to OPS and BPA that they had no need of permission, no need of a contract and that any contract was specifically and clearly repudiated and not agreed. This was done weeks before the issuing of any Parking Charge. By virtue of this denial, no contract was formed and any remedy would have been under the tort of trespass.

6) In the alternative, the signage is of forbidding nature and therefore faulty and incapable of forming a contract. It forbids parking by certain vehicles, and it is not possible to contract to do something that is forbidden. Further, the signage on the site is inconsistent and confusing, mixing OPS sign with clear “No Parking” signs, and again, one cannot form a contract with a “No Parking” sign.

7.     The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. etc etc 

Coupon-mad

Is it worth mentioning the Land Registry situation with the easement letter?

Are these your PCNs or the neighbour's, I am trying to recall?

Worth a counterclaim?

Oh, and the point #1 has cut out some wording about OPS only having a bare licence as agents. Use the original template point #1 unless you removed that on purpose due to the situation.

Trainerman

Thanks very much @Coupon-mad. Yes, this one is the PPC claiming against my neighbour, for whom I will probably be lay repping. 

Interesting points that you raise too. I left out the bare licence bit as I have seen the contract and they are able to sue. The bit about the easement is interesting too. My thought was, as I have to submit defence before I hear about the easement, that I would send as is and then if the easement is registered before court date both a) add to WS and b) immediately inform DCB and invite them to discontinue.

You people know a lot more than I do, so if you think my strategy is flawed I readily  accept advice. Thanks again and enjoy the sun tomorrow ( allegedly )

Coupon-mad

No I think your reasoning is spot on! 

 I have also seen the contract as it's part of @ParkingMad's OPS collection, stored off forum.

Trainerman

Thanks again to @Coupon-mad and also @ParkingMad for all the help.

I do have one more question. I have been contemplating adding the paragraph below as (probably) a new paragraph 1 and renumbering accordingly. I would be interested in views as to whether it might be a good idea or maybe just a distraction to the Judge. -

1) The correct pre-action protocol has not been followed. a) The Letter before Claim does not include a clear financial breakdown including claimed interest and admin charges. b) LoC did not arrive with Defendant until after Court proceedings started. DCB Legal have said that it was posted in time and that they have confirmation, but have not supplied it. They are put to strict proof of compliance with the protocol, including posting and if this is not supplied the Court is invited to dismiss the case as an abuse of process

Thanks