Notification of Instruction from ELMS Legal LTd

DWGrassman

1. The defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  The defendant denies that any conduct by the driver gave rise to a ‘parking charge’ and that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or to form contracts in their own name at the location.P

2. The defendant is the hirer of this vehicle but more than one driver in the family uses it locally (including for this regular trip) and there is no evidence that the driver was the Defendant on this occasion.  In order to hold the hirer liable for the actions of an unidentified driver, a parking firm must have complied with paragraph 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.  It is denied that the Claimant complied in terms of the documents that must have bern served and thus, liability is denied

3. The defendants vehicle  is parked in that area once a week for an hour due to the defendant son having football practice at the site next door. The Vehicle has been parked in the car park before when there is no room at the site next door to park. The defendant has since visited the site and found the following;

There is no signage at the entrance to the car park/ land stating the restrictions in force.

There are not sufficient signs in place around the carpark covering every parking spot  stating the restrictions that are in force.

The signs that are attached to the fencing in the car park area are not well lit in the dark and can easily be missed. The requirements are that clear signage must be erected at all entrances to the carpark stating the restrictions in force. Therefore anybody who was driving the vehicle at the time has not entered into a contract with VCS

4. The defendant received a letter before claim from VCS on XX/xx/xx

In the letter, there is no explanation of the contravention and the defendant having had no previous contact from VCS before in regards to the PCN this is something the defendant  is unaware of. Also The defendant received the PCN which was photographed on the defendant s windscreen which may have not been attached properly and just fell off when the vehicle drove off. The defendant emailed VCS with regards their PCN and they replied by saying it was too late to investigate why The defendant had not received their previous correspondence and said they will be pressing on with further action against the defendant . As VCS don’t have any proof that the defendant received their PCN believe it should be deemed null and void due to the fact that the defendant had not received it in there hand or at the defendants address within 56 days of the time stated on their notice.

              

Coupon-mad

That's better.  The 3 short paras after the word 'following' need (i), (ii) and (iii) numbering.

DWGrassman

Thanks Coupon, I will tidy it up a little more. So Is the rest of your template ok to add to this? What about Para 6? Where you refer to the 8% interest added on. In my case they have added £60 on to the original £100 fine plus court costs. Do I need to change this? Thanks

Umkomaas

DWGrassman said:

Thanks Coupon, I will tidy it up a little more. So Is the rest of your template ok to add to this? What about Para 6? Where you refer to the 8% interest added on. In my case they have added £60 on to the original £100 fine plus court costs. Do I need to change this? Thanks

Can you show us a full itemised breakdown of their costs please?

Coupon-mad

If you have a claim then it surely does mention interest, in the particulars of claim on the left. 

You are not meant to edit the standard template except paras 2 and 3 and the headers.

1505grandad

Couple of (typos) to be amended:-

Para 2  -   ".....must have (bern) served and thus, liability is denied"

Para 4  -  "......the defendant had not received it in (there) hand......."

DWGrassman

The total amount on the claim form is £245
Amount Claimed £160
Court fee £35
Legal Rep Costs £50

Umkomaas

DWGrassman said:

The total amount on the claim form is £245
Amount Claimed £160
Court fee £35
Legal Rep Costs £50

Thanks. 

Appears to be £100 (PCN) + £60 'debt collection/admin/contractual charge' - no added interest, so leave that bit out. 

DWGrassman

Hi All
Is this looking ok now, followed by the rest of the template unedited? As I would like to email it off tommorow.
 Thanks for your help, much appreciated.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(Claimant)

- and -  

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                        

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

1. The defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  The defendant denies that any conduct by the driver gave rise to a ‘parking charge’ and that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or to form contracts in their own name at the location.

2. The defendant is the hirer of this vehicle but more than one driver in the family uses it locally (including for this regular trip) and there is no evidence that the driver was the Defendant on this occasion.  In order to hold the hirer liable for the actions of an unidentified driver, a parking firm must have complied with paragraph 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.  It is denied that the Claimant complied in terms of the documents that must have been served and thus, liability is denied

3. The defendants vehicle  is parked in that area once a week for an hour due to the defendants son having football practice at the site next door. The Vehicle has been parked in the car park before when there is no room at the site next door to park. The defendant has since visited the site and found the following;

i. There is no signage at the entrance to the car park/ land stating the restrictions in force.

ii. There are not sufficient signs in place around the carpark covering every parking spot  stating the restrictions that are in force.

iii. The signs that are attached to the fencing in the car park area are not well lit in the dark and can easily be missed. The requirements are that clear signage must be erected at all entrances to the carpark stating the restrictions in force. Therefore anybody who was driving the vehicle at the time has not entered into a contract with VCS

4. The defendant received a letter before claim from VCS on XX/xx/xx

In the letter, there is no explanation of the contravention and the defendant having had no previous contact from VCS before in regards to the PCN this is something the defendant  is unaware of. Also The PCN which was photographed by VCS on the defendants windscreen may have not been attached properly and just fell off when the vehicle drove off. The defendant emailed VCS with regards their PCN and they replied by saying it was too late to investigate why the defendant had not received their previous correspondence and said they will be pressing on with further action against the defendant . As VCS don’t have any proof that the defendant received their PCN believe it should be deemed null and void due to the fact that the defendant had not received it in their hand, or at the defendants address within 56 days of the time stated on their notice.

              

Coupon-mad

No, this is a step too far as it suggests you were driving:

As VCS don’t have any proof that the defendant received their PCN believe it should be deemed null and void due to the fact that the defendant had not received it in their hand, or at the defendants address within 56 days of the time stated on their notice.

Also as you were the hirer, the period of time to receive a NTH plus mandatory enclosures is not 56 days.  That's not relevant to you because VCS had to send a NTK to the lease/hire firm first and none of that timeline is relevant to you as the hirer.