Notice of proposed allocation to the small claims track

Lisatcb

Coupon-mad said:

No, we want to see your draft please.  We want to help you get it right.

OK..  😊 thank you!

Lisatcb

Hi.. all.. 
Omg I'm such a bad pa leaving it till the last minute...
I've struggled to be honest!! 

Here's the draft need to be submitted by 4pm tomorrow 19th 

Many thanks 
To country court basildon   case no H0DP6J5H

     claimant 

national car parks limited 

        V

Defendant 

 Mr Dean flynn

Defence

1, I wasn't the driver.

2, No parking took place.

My mum dropped me to the station carpark in question, turned

around and drove out! Later that day she picked me up from the

station car park, turned around and drove out!

As you are allowed 15 minutes free parking NO parking offences

took place!

The original ticket was appealed and never heard back until bw

legal took over. I have emailed them about this matter asking for

photo and cctv evidence and didn't get anything back.

I'm asking for evidence (PHOTOS CCTV) as there will be 2 entry's

and 2 exit's

BOTH VERY UNDER 15 MINS..

AT NO TIME DID ANY PARKING TAKE PLACE BY ME OR MY MOTHER IN THE

VEHICLE.

SO NO OFFENCE WAS COMMITTED, THEREFORE I DO NOT OWE ANY

FINES/MONEY!

AMENDED DEFENCE 

I have since received photo cctv pictures of the alleged parking offence. 

1. Both pictures are of entry's 

Entering at 19.00:43 2020 09-18

Entering again at 10.14:34 2020 09 19

As my mum dropped and picked me up everyday from Standford Le Hope station car park. During the pandemic.

I have the photos to prove this. Which can be provided.

 

Statement of truth 

I believe the contents of this form are correct.  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 be a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Date 18/01/2021

Sign Dean flynn

THERE FOR ID LIKE TO COUNER CLAIM THE AMOUNT OF £300 POUNDS FOR HARASSMENT AND MISS USE OF DATA. 

 damages for distress caused by breach of statutory duty under the Data Protection Act 2018 and General Data Protection Regulation ('the GDPR');

  d) damages for distress caused by harassment contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ('the PFHA') ref section 3;, distress and harassment of a person , pursuant to the Equality Act 2010 ('the EA').and breach of statutory duty as a 'service provider' as set out in the Equality & Human Rights Commission Code of Practice relating to the EA (the EHRC CoP):

I can phone up and pay the £60 fee or please call me on 07397518741 for the payment.

Lisatcb

This will be sent by email in a document.  My daughter is going to do it in the morning for us. 
Please add and take as you wish.. delivering is 4pm 19 January 

Thank you x

Coupon-mad

That's not based on the forum template defence and sadly, that amended defence is not much better than the first.

This short draft has been written off the top of your head in the first person 'me' and 'I' instead of 'the Defendant did this/that' (as this forum guides you to do).  You don't seem to have found the Template Defence thread at the top of the forum.

No-one writes it from scratch.

The resources are here to help you and most new posters adapt the template within half an hour, easily, so you have time to put this right in the morning.

All the stuff above 'Anended Defence' is meant to be struck through.

And this is NOT a proper defence statement of truth, not sure where you got this from:

I believe the contents of this form are correct. 

As for counterclaims, look at the recent ones by @Jams91 and @theeagleman (those are links to their profiles, see their Discussions).

Lisatcb

DEFENCE

Defence

1, I wasn't the driver.
2, No parking took place.
My mum dropped me to the station carpark in question, turned
around and drove out! Later that day she picked me up from the
station car park, turned around and drove out!
As you are allowed 15 minutes free parking NO parking offences
took place!
The original ticket was appealed and never heard back until bw
legal took over. I have emailed them about this matter asking for
photo and cctv evidence and didn't get anything back.
I'm asking for evidence (PHOTOS CCTV) as there will be 2 entry's
and 2 exit's
BOTH VERY UNDER 15 MINS..
AT NO TIME DID ANY PARKING TAKE PLACE BY ME OR MY MOTHER IN THE
VEHICLE.
SO NO OFFENCE WAS COMMITTED, THEREFORE I DO NOT OWE ANY
FINES/MONEY!

____________________

AMENDED DEFENCE 

The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled the sum claimed, or any amount. It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that any parking took place. The Claimant is relying on 2 CCTV pictures over 2 days that are clearly 2 entry's no exit pictures are held on file after applying for a SAR

I have received photo cctv pictures of the alleged parking offence. That can  be provided. 

1. Both pictures are of entry's 

Entering at 19.00:43 2020 09-18

Entering again at 10.14:34 2020 09 19 (Claimant states this is an exit)

 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. A contract requires three elements, Offer, Consideration and Acceptance. This contract would have been with the driver not the registered keeper who is the defendant in this case, therefore it is denied that any contract with the Claimant was formed. Or any breach as no parking took place.

 

3. The Defendant wasn't the driver of the vehicle, he was the passenger. The Defendant’s mother named as Lisa flynn was the driver, the Defendant was dropped to the station car park in question and picked up every morning and evening in the pandemic. 

4. The Defendant on two occasions has made it clear to the Claimant that they have no evidence as no parking took place and both pictures are of entry's. No further reason to pursue the Defendant, yet still the Claimant is harassing the Defendant with payment plans.

Counterclaim...

1. This counterclaim is for damages for distress caused by the Claimant's multiple breaches of statutory duty. The Defendant will rely upon the authorities of (i) Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46 and (ii) Harrison v Link Financial Ltd [2011] EWHC B3 (Mercantile) and other similar authorities as well as primary statute law. Further, the authority in Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015] EWCA 311 confirms that pecuniary loss is not necessary for compensation to be payable and that pure distress is enough.

2. The bands of awards for injury to feelings, known as the Vento bands, have been updated from April 2020. This stems from a landmark case from 2003 (Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police) where the Court of Appeal set out clear guidelines for Courts and Tribunals to apply when they are assessing injury to feelings awards for pure distress, as opposed to financial loss. The Vento case decided that there is now an accepted quantum for compensation and courts have followed this guidance. In a judgment at the Leeds County Court, 3SP00071 - Blamires v LGO - which was a claim for damages including a breach of the DPA, an award of £2,500 was granted as compensation for distress, so the Defendant believes this counterclaim is extremely reasonable, given the circumstances. 

3. To simplify the counterclaim and to assist the court in determining the issue without complicated calculations, it is set - notwithstanding which allegation(s) succeed - at a single sum in compensation at the lowest end of established guidance in the Vento bands, pursuant to the following: 

a) damages for distress caused by the Claimants’ breach of statutory duties under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and misleading actions within the meaning of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, as amended by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (“the Regulations”);  

b) damages for distress caused by breach of statutory duty under the Data Protection Act 2018 and General Data Protection Regulation ('the GDPR');

c) damages for distress caused by harassment contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ('the PFHA') ref section 3;

 

Damages for distress caused by the Claimants’ breach of statutory duties under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and misleading actions within the meaning of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, as amended by the Consumer Protection Regulations (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (“the Regulations”):

 

4. The Claimant alleges that there was a contract formed at the moment of parking the car by which the Driver is bound. This was a transactional decision within the meaning of the Regulations at 20(b) even though the Driver had no fair opportunity to read and discover the terms by which they would be bound. Because no parking took place, was merely a drop off, turn around and out.

5. The Claimants behaviour represents a clear attempt to mislead the Defendant into thinking that they had to pay, what was asked or they would get a CCJ

6. Thus, the claimant was fully aware that no parking took place, both image's are of entry's on 2 diffrant days. The defendant was not the driver but continued court proceedings and the proper course of action for them was to pursue that named driver (or decide to cancel the parking charge). There was no longer any reasonable cause to continue to use and process the data of the registered keeper that the Claimants had originally harvested from the DVLA for £2.50 for the specific and strictly defined purpose (in the DVLA KADOE rules) of enquiring who was driving. Yet both the Claimant and their legal representatives continued to tell the Defendant that they were liable.

7. Accordingly the Claimants’ conduct amounted to:

(i) an unfair commercial practice which is prohibited under regulation 3 and 

(ii) a misleading action within the meaning of regulations 5 and 6, for which redress is available under regulation 27(J)(b) of the Regulations.

Damages for distress caused by breach of statutory duty under the Data Protection Act 2018 and General Data Protection Regulation ('the GDPR'):

8. Personal data must be processed fairly and lawfully. The Claimants stand in breach of Article 5 (1) of the GDPR (the requirement for lawfulness, fairness and transparency). Predatory pursuing of the wrong person is entirely at odds with those doctrines and despite the wishes of their principal to cancel this unfair charge, the Claimant's aggressive pursuit and abuse of the Defendant's data has continued. Accordingly, the processing of my DVLA data was not “necessary for the performance of, or commencing, a contract” and nor was it necessary or justified under any other data processing excuse. Distress is now included under Article 82 of the GDPR and the 2018 DPA. The Claimants had, and still have, no prospect of furthering their purpose and no legitimate cause to store and/or then to continue processing the Defendant's data. In accordance with Principles 1,2 and 5 of the Data Protection Principles they were not permitted to process or keep it. 

 

9. The Claimants noted, photographed, and stored the Vehicle Registration Mark then requested and received the Defendant’s personal data due to obtaining the registered keeper data relating to that vehicle, from the DVLA. The purpose was to seek payment of the parking charge which is the subject of the Claimants’ claim. The VRM itself and the Defendant’s details are 'personal data' within the meaning of the DPA 2018 and the associated General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). 

 and the Defendant a data subject, within the meaning of the Acts. The Claimants were thereby under a statutory duty to process the Defendant’s data only in strict accordance with the DPA 2018 and the GDPR Articles 5 (1)(a) and (b) and 6 (1)(f)). 

 

11. Article 5 of the GDPR sets out seven key principles which lie at the heart of the general data protection regime. These are broadly the same as the DPA Principles. Article 5(1) requires that personal data shall be:

(a) processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to individuals (‘lawfulness, fairness and transparency’); 

(b) collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes; (‘purpose limitation’);

(c) adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed (‘data minimisation’); 

(d) accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date; every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that personal data that are inaccurate, having regard to the purposes for which they are processed, are erased or rectified without delay (‘accuracy’); 

(e) kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the personal data are processed (‘storage limitation’); 

f) processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the personal data, including protection against unauthorised or unlawful processing and against accidental loss, destruction or damage, using appropriate measures (‘integrity and confidentiality’).

 

12. Article 5(2) adds that: “The controller shall be responsible for, and be able to demonstrate compliance with, paragraph 1 (‘accountability'). Article 6(1)f of the GDPR states an exemption if processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data. 

 

13. The processing of the Defendant’s data should have ceased once the claimant was made aware no parking took place, in fact the 2 image's relied on were both entry's. Did the Claimants have any legitimate cause to continue processing the keeper's data for the purposes of pursuing a parking charge.   

Damages for distress caused by harassment contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ('the PFHA') ref section 3:

 

1. It is alleged that the Claimant's conduct has crossed the line into harassment and that it has breached the PFHA, which states:

(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct—

(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and

(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

 

(2) For the purposes of this section [or section 2A(2)(c)], the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to [or involves] harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

 

(3) Subsection (1) [or (1A)] does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—

(a) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,

(b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or

(c) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

 

 

 

2. None of the justifications in (3) above can possibly apply. Despite the Defendant’s supplying information that both pictures are of entry's and no parking took place, the Claimants persisted in aggressively and unjustifiably pursuing their unreasonable charge. The Claimant’s harassing course of conduct included sending, by themselves or through their agents and/or from UK Car Parking Control Ltd, multiple demands threatening legal action and misleading the Defendant. The proper course of action was to transfer liability to the driver or cancel the PCN but instead, the Claimant's hostile correspondence and threats of court action have been particularly intimidating over a period, leaving the Defendant feeling emotionally vulnerable.

3. The Claimants’ course of conduct in pursuing this spurious parking charge, including the issue of these proceedings, amounts to harassment within the meaning of section 1, Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Instead of transferring liability to the driver or cancelling the PCN, the Claimant embarked on a harassing course of conduct that has continued several occasions and has plagued the Defendant, exacerbating anxiety, distress, and symptoms of their medical conditions, causing loss of sleep, significant increase of blood pressure and interfering with their peace of mind. In all the premises, the conduct of the Claimant amounts to harassment under section 1 of the PFHA as well as harassment pursuant to the EA. Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully seeks damages pursuant to s3(2) of the PFHA.

AND THE DEFENDANT COUNTERCLAIMS: -  

5.      

a). Compensation in the sum of: £300 or such sum as the Court sees fit including any award of aggravated damages at the court's discretion; 

b). Court fees: £50.00 filing fee (if the Defendant does not get help with fees: applied for); 

c). Interest pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984, at such rates / for such periods on the sums found due to the Defendant as the Court may deem fit; 

d). Costs to be assessed. As a result of the Claimants’ unreasonable behaviour, the Court is respectfully invited to order the Claimants to pay the Defendants’ costs on an indemnity basis, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules, rule 27.14 (2) (g).  

 

Statement of Truth

I believe the contents of this form are correct. 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. 

Sign 

19/01/2022

Lisatcb

I believe the contents of this form are correct. 

This is written on the form from the court 
At the conclusion of thier documents both party's must write... 

Lisatcb

Thank you for your quick reply Coupon-mad...
My biggest challenge is that I'm using my phone to create the document..
I've now got to find out how my son can sign it ... I hope this one is OK and much better.. 

Thanks 😊 

Trainerman

Lisatcb said:

Thank you for your quick reply Coupon-mad...
My biggest challenge is that I'm using my phone to create the document..
I've now got to find out how my son can sign it ... I hope this one is OK and much better.. 

Thanks 😊 

Phones do not really work for this. Do you have access to a tablet or laptop? Results will be much better

Lisatcb

I've emailed it to my daughter at work so she can put it in a document and email it back to me.. 
Hopefully this works as today is the last day.. 

Lisatcb

The old defence will be strike though... I forgot to add.. thanks 😊