Autosec Court Claim Defence

rbht13

Hi all, first post here but its been such as outstanding resource to help fight a pair of unjustified parking tickets so far. A court claim landed recently for these two, both of which were when parking at a residential address. So far I've followed the newbie thread and submitted an acknowledgement of service, as well as a SAR to Autosec (unacknowledged to date). 

I'd appreciate any feedback on the paragraphs below which I've drafted for the defence alongside the full defence linked from the newbies thread. 

"2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle at the time both Parking Charge Notices were issued, but that on both occasions a valid parking permit was displayed within a reasonable time following arrival at the location.  

3.  In relation to claim [first claim], the Defendant was visiting [their] partner at the premises and immediately upon arrival went inside the building to collect the valid Visitor parking permit which [they] possessed as a building resident. Upon returning to the vehicle, less than ten minutes later, a Parking Charge Notice had been affixed to the vehicle. Residents are allocated one Visitor’s parking pass in addition to their own pass. Additionally, signage on display at [location] states that loading is permissible without a permit for a period of up to ten minutes.  

In relation to claim [second claim], the vehicle was parked wholly within the correct marked bay allocated for use by the defendant’s partner, who [defendant] was visiting at the premises. The correct permit for the bay was clearly on display. 

In both cases appeals were sent within the specific timeframe to the claimant using the methodology stated in the Parking Charge Notice, but neither appeal was acknowledged by the claimant and no response was received by the defendant. In relation to claim [first claim], a Notice to Keeper was received by the Defendant, however this was not received within the time required by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4).  "

Any and all advice gratefully received and thanks in advance. 

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

D_P_Dance

Have you complained to your MP?

rbht13

KeithP said:

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Thanks Keith. The issue date is 8th September and the AoS was submitted on the 19th.

rbht13

D_P_Dance said:

Have you complained to your MP?

Not yet, but it’s on the to do list now, thank you

KeithP

rbht13 said:

KeithP said:

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Thanks Keith. The issue date is 8th September and the AoS was submitted on the 19th.

With a Claim Issue Date of 8th September, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 11th October 2021 to file your Defence.

That's nearly three 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 at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline 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'.

Coupon-mad

In relation to claim [first claim], a Notice to Keeper was received by the Defendant, however this was not received within the time required by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4).  "

You should remove the above because that is irrelevant to an admitted driver.

Apart from that, looks good. Maybe add something about Autosec no longer being in a Trade Body and not being a trading parking firm, and that you understand that the company is being wound up.  Other Autosec threads have info about that.

rbht13

Coupon-mad said:

Apart from that, looks good. Maybe add something about Autosec no longer being in a Trade Body and not being a trading parking firm, and that you understand that the company is being wound up.  Other Autosec threads have info about that.

Thank you, I’ll make that change. 

I’m also using the rest of the template defence you posted which is linked from the newbies thread, though I did wonder whether it is be appropriate for this case because I am not claiming to have missed the signage. Perhaps you could allay my fears as author of that template? Really appreciate your help. 

Le_Kirk

You might not have missed the signage but that does not mean it is appropriate and meets the standard set by the Code of Practice.

Umkomaas

I'm not sure why some wish to prepare their heads for presentation on a plate!

Coupon-mad

The template is a template for a good reason, to stop people crossing out or discounting the relevance of vital and standard stuff like unclear signs!