Received a Claim Form for an ANPR "fine" for £260.00, and don't think there's much of a defense?

Le_Kirk

mylampisonthetable said:

Thanks all. I'm taking it all in. I will endeavour to understand the defence that I put together. To that end I have another question: should the driver be identified in the defence?

If you are defending as keeper and NOT driver, then no, do not identify driver.  The reason for not identifying driver is that if the original PCN was not POFA compliant the claimant cannot hold the keeper liable for the actions of a driver.  If it was POFA compliant it matters not, however in either scenario just ask yourself what you would say if the judge ask you "were you the driver on the day?"

Snakes_Belly

You will need to take a good look at those car parks. There does not appear to be much signage on the way in (where the contract should be formed). There also seems some ambiguity between the free period in the two car parks. One is 3 or4 hours and the other appears to be 7 hours but you need to see the signs. I have been reading Google Reviews about the car parks. If one car park is four hours free and the other is seven and there is no real demarcation between the them you may have a defence point.   

mylampisonthetable

Well that's turned my apprehension around from "no defense" to "maybe something small" - an improvement! Now, I've literally spent only five minutes on this but the main basis for my defence (based on filling out the template defence) currently looks like this. I'd be happy to receive some early feedback:

2b. Parc Tawe has two car parks for the same retail site, with no real demarcation between them. Any reasonable person would assume they were the same. Each has its own set of conditions and enforcement, which can easily lead to confusion. This inconsistency makes it easier for drivers to get caught up whereas previously they might not have, by merely parking in the other part of Parc Tawe.

2c. The signage on entry Parc Tawe North was inadequate. There was ambiguity between the free period in the two car parks, and the other car park had a much longer free peiod.

I'm also hoping to really press the fact that the Claimant is abusing the court and the threat of court to make people pay through the nose. Can anything be done about the fact that the Claimant mentioned possible CCJs in the earliest mailings, thus treating it as a penalty rather than as an invoice?

Umkomaas

mylampisonthetable said:

I haven't tried to settle yet, but if it's a boon to my case, should I make an offer today? And if so, for how much? £100 is the original "invoice" (and the claim includes £60 recovery costs, £35 court fee, £50 legal representative's costs and interest).

Did you not read my posting of 17 December at 2:40pm about 'making an offer'?

mylampisonthetable

(Umkomass, yes I did. I got confused by subsequent posts RE mediation)

Another question while I'm at it - and I'm hoping for some answers to my other questions from today - is whether I should somehow address why no response was given to any previous correspondence in the defence?

Snakes_Belly

"I'm also hoping to really press the fact that the Claimant is abusing the court and the threat of court to make people pay through the nose. Can anything be done about the fact that the Claimant mentioned possible CCJs in the earliest mailings, thus treating it as a penalty rather than as an invoice?"

Abuse of process is where the Claimant has inflated the claim and is using the court as a means to enforce the inflated claim. 

I would also mention the CoP but you will have to say that it is not retrospective. It does show that these claims are inflated and could have some influence.

I don't know how you will get around the fact that you did not respond. Not all PPC's chase claims through the courts. If the driver did not believe that they owed the debt then they may have ignored it.  If the Judge or the Claimant's rep brings it up then have an answer ready. 

mylampisonthetable

The latest development on this claim is that I've now sent a SAR to Premier Park Limited via email.

Coupon-mad

You can say the Defendant saw the colourful and ever more threatening demands as a scam and has since discovered that Parliament agrees, MPs having used that word in debates when passing new legislation (already statute law) in order to regulate this rogue industry from 2022.  The main concerns of the Government (all of which feature in this case) have been predatory ticketing, unclear signs and entrapment sites, high charges and costs which are either not incurred at all or are disproportionate, and a perceived lack of independence or transparency of the Trade Body run Appeals Services.  Given the latter have been reportedly involved in a 'race to the bottom' in recent years, with bizarre decisions against motorists, the Defendant submits that his decision not to respond to the bombardment of letters was not necessarily wrong and the parties would still be here, regardless, because any appeal would not have been likely to succeed.  One of the competing Appeals Services boasted in their 2020 Annual Report that only 4% of cases adjudicated, were found in the consumer's favour.

mylampisonthetable

Aside from adding my own sections as usual to the template defence, are there any other sections in the standard defence that would need to change or be removed etc for any reason (or in particular, due to the nature of this particular incident?)

Le_Kirk

Generally you do not need to edit/add/delete anything from or to the template.  Just check that you do not add anything to your paragraphs 2 & 3 that duplicate anything already in the template.