Civil Enforcement LTD Private Car Park 4 Year Old Court Claim Letter Received.

georgeireland

Coupon-mad said:

You do not now wait.  The defence must go in on time regardless of the SAR, and takes half an hour.

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. 

3. The car park is situated behind the restaurant in a busy village, it was a bright day and there were plenty of spaces available with other cars also parked. It is a small car park with approximately 13 spaces total, the business was closed at the time so the NatWest mobile banking branch uses it on agreement with the restaurant during specific times of day during the week – this was one such time and this arrangement is still occurring to this day and details of which are specified on the official NatWest website.

There was no prior warning of these cameras being installed and many customers of the bank including myself a regular visitor. There was no signage about what to do regarding what to do at the front entrance if the business is closed. Customers need to enter their car registration when the business is open however, this was not possible or accessible to do as it was closed.

The excessive amount of text on 4 separate signs at different locations including the restaurants own meant it was unrealistic to read it all and make an informed decision within the 10-minute grace period allowed at the car park. I was a mere 3 minutes over this grace period. The amount requested of £316.11 is not commensurate of a 3 minutes parking violation. Additionally, the placement of signage against sunlight and behind railings mean that it is incredibly difficult to read without getting out of the vehicle and walking up a footpath ramp.

I would also like to point out the alleged infraction only specifies the time of entry and time of exit; it does not specify how long I was parked. Given the circumstances behind the reason I was there originally and the poor placement of signage I find the action taken against me unjustified and disproportionate.

**This is what I have so far. Is this sufficient or should I word it different.

Fruitcake

georgeireland said:

Coupon-mad said:

You do not now wait.  The defence must go in on time regardless of the SAR, and takes half an hour.

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. 

3. The car park is situated behind the restaurant in a busy village, it was a bright day and there were plenty of spaces available with other cars also parked. It is a small car park with approximately 13 spaces total, one of the businesses the business was closed at the time so but the NatWest mobile banking branch uses it on agreement with the restaurant during specific times of day during the week – this was one such time and this arrangement is still occurring to this day and details of which are specified on the official NatWest website, a copy of which will be provided to the court at the Witness Statement stage.

There was no prior warning of these a change in parking terms and installation of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras being installed. This is a breach of the British Parking Association's (BPA) code of practice [insert BPA CoP reference number and paragraph here] and many customers of the bank including myself a regular visitor. 

*[It should be noted that the landowner cancelled its contract with the parking company and all signs and equipment were removed due to the detrimental effect the existence of the parking company had on its business. This is a clear indication that the landowner does not wish the claimant to pursue this claim.]*

*[Include this, or a variation of this if true.]*

There was no signage about what to do regarding what to do at the front entrance if the business is closed. Customers need to enter their car registration when the business is open however, this was not possible or accessible to do as it was closed.

The excessive amount of text on 4 separate signs at different locations including the restaurants own meant it was unrealistic to read it all and make an informed decision within the 10-minute grace period allowed at the car park. I The defendant was a mere 3 minutes over this grace period. The amount requested of £316.11 is not commensurate of a 3 minutes parking violation. Additionally, the placement of signage against sunlight and behind railings mean that it is incredibly difficult to read without getting out of the vehicle and walking up a footpath ramp, which accounted for the additional time needed for this specific car park beyond the standard grace period. 

I would also like to point out the The alleged infraction only specifies the time of entry and time of exit; it does not specify how long I the vehicle was parked since ANPR camera systems are incapable of recording parking time, only time on site. Given the circumstances behind the reason I was there originally and the poor placement of signage I find the action taken against me unjustified and disproportionate.

**This is what I have so far. Is this sufficient or should I word it different.

Not bad, but it could do with a few tweaks. I have made a few suggestions for you.

georgeireland

Fruitcake said:

georgeireland said:

Coupon-mad said:

You do not now wait.  The defence must go in on time regardless of the SAR, and takes half an hour.

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. 

3. The car park is situated behind the restaurant in a busy village, it was a bright day and there were plenty of spaces available with other cars also parked. It is a small car park with approximately 13 spaces total, one of the businesses the business was closed at the time so but the NatWest mobile banking branch uses it on agreement with the restaurant during specific times of day during the week – this was one such time and this arrangement is still occurring to this day and details of which are specified on the official NatWest website, a copy of which will be provided to the court at the Witness Statement stage.

There was no prior warning of these a change in parking terms and installation of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras being installed. This is a breach of the British Parking Association's (BPA) code of practice [insert BPA CoP reference number and paragraph here] and many customers of the bank including myself a regular visitor. 

*[It should be noted that the landowner cancelled its contract with the parking company and all signs and equipment were removed due to the detrimental effect the existence of the parking company had on its business. This is a clear indication that the landowner does not wish the claimant to pursue this claim.]*

*[Include this, or a variation of this if true.]*

There was no signage about what to do regarding what to do at the front entrance if the business is closed. Customers need to enter their car registration when the business is open however, this was not possible or accessible to do as it was closed.

The excessive amount of text on 4 separate signs at different locations including the restaurants own meant it was unrealistic to read it all and make an informed decision within the 10-minute grace period allowed at the car park. I The defendant was a mere 3 minutes over this grace period. The amount requested of £316.11 is not commensurate of a 3 minutes parking violation. Additionally, the placement of signage against sunlight and behind railings mean that it is incredibly difficult to read without getting out of the vehicle and walking up a footpath ramp, which accounted for the additional time needed for this specific car park beyond the standard grace period. 

I would also like to point out the The alleged infraction only specifies the time of entry and time of exit; it does not specify how long I the vehicle was parked since ANPR camera systems are incapable of recording parking time, only time on site. Given the circumstances behind the reason I was there originally and the poor placement of signage I find the action taken against me unjustified and disproportionate.

**This is what I have so far. Is this sufficient or should I word it different.

Not bad, but it could do with a few tweaks. I have made a few suggestions for you.

Thank you so much! I was already working on the third person edit but this helps a lot! Should I keep the rest of the template which includes examples of other cases the same and just focus on these 1-3 points of the template?

Fruitcake

Yes, keep everything in from the template and just concentrate on your additions/amendments. However, you must make sure you understand the rest of the defence.

georgeireland

Fruitcake said:

Yes, keep everything in from the template and just concentrate on your additions/amendments. However, you must make sure you understand the rest of the defence.

Very much so, wonderful - I'm contacting the restaurant just in case to find out why they cancelled the contract with the parking company. Interestingly enough I found an old Tripadvisor review from a customer who had the exact same experience. I'll also be going to the very same NatWest mobile branch in the same car park to confirm the arrangement they have.

I'll tweak it a teeny bit more and I'll send it off in a couple of days to the e-mail of the court. I don't suppose I need to send my pictures and evidence unless I get a hearing right?

Fruitcake

Nothing goes with the defence.

Post your efforts here for others to check to get the maximum input before you submit it.

Coupon-mad

the 10-minute grace period allowed at the car park.

How do you know there was a 10 minute grace period?  Unless the signs said so, don't make it sound like the driver knew.  Don't say they were 3 minutes over anything.

georgeireland

Coupon-mad said:

the 10-minute grace period allowed at the car park.

How do you know there was a 10 minute grace period?  Unless the signs said so, don't make it sound like the driver knew.  Don't say they were 3 minutes over anything.

Fair point. I'll remove that or at least unspecify it. I swear by remember reading it afterwards but my imagery is limited regrettablty. Removed a bit to fit into the box

IN THE COUNTY COURT                                                                                             Claim No: ABCDEF123

 

Between

Butts Enforcement

(Claimant) 

- and -  

Jimmy Neutron

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

 

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver gave rise to a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied 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.

 

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. 

3. The car park is situated behind the restaurant in a busy village, it was a bright day and there were plenty of spaces available with other cars also parked. It is a small car park with approximately 13 spaces total, one of businesses was closed at the time but the NatWest mobile banking branch uses it on agreement with the restaurant during specific times of day during the week – this was one such time and this arrangement is still occurring to this day and details of which are specified on the official NatWest website, a copy of which will be provided to the court at the Witness Statement stage.

There was no prior warning of new signs and Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) being installed and many customers of the bank including the Defendant are regular visitors.

There was no prior warning of a change in parking terms and installation of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras being installed. This is a breach of the British Parking Association's (BPA) code of practice [insert BPA CoP reference number and paragraph here]

It should be noted that the landowner cancelled its contract with the parking company and all signs and equipment were removed due to the detrimental effect the existence of the parking company had on its business. This is an indication that the landowner does not wish the claimant to pursue this claim.

There was no signage about what to do regarding what to do at the front entrance if the business is closed. Customers need to enter their car registration when the business is open however, this was not possible due to the closure. The excessive amount of text on 4 separate signs at different locations including the restaurants own meant it was unrealistic to read it all and make an informed decision within any reasonable time allowed at the car park. Additionally, the placement of signage against sunlight and behind railings means that it is incredibly difficult to read without getting out of the vehicle and walking up a footpath ramp, which accounted for the additional time needed for this specific car park beyond any reasonable grace period. The alleged infraction only specifies the time of entry and time of exit; it does not specify how long the vehicle was parked since ANPR camera systems are incapable of recording parking time, only time on site.  4. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  The Defendant should not be criticised for using some pre-written wording from a reliable source.  The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. This Defendant signed it after full research and having read this defence several times, because the court process is outside of their life experience.  The claim was an unexpected shock. 5. With regard to template statements, the Defendant observes after researching other parking cases, that the Particulars of Claim ('POC') set out a generic and incoherent statement of case.  Prior to this - and in breach of the pre-action protocol for 'Debt' Claims - no copy of the contract (sign) was served with a Letter of Claim.  The POC is sparse on facts about the allegation, making it difficult to respond in depth at this time.  
  Conclusion 25. With the DLUHC's ban on additional costs, there is now ample evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims.  For HMCTS to only dismiss extortionate costs in the tiny percentage of cases that reach hearings, whilst allowing other such claims to continue to flood the courts unabated, is to fail hundreds of thousands of consumers every year, who suffer CCJs or pay inflated amounts due to intimidating tactics at pre-action stage. The Defendant believes that knowingly enhanced parking claims cause consumer harm on a grand scale and it is in the public interest that claims like this should not be allowed to continue.  The Defendant invites the court to dismiss the false 'costs' element at least, and to consider whether an appropriate sanction is to resume the policy of striking out parking claims altogether, where the POC include a vague but fixed sum in 'damages/costs'.  26. The claim is entirely without merit and the Claimant is urged to discontinue now, to avoid incurring costs and wasting the court's time and that of the Defendant.    Statement of Truth I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.  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. Defendant’s signature:
DIGITAL SIGNATURE HERE   Date: 04/04/2022  

Coupon-mad

Removed a bit to fit into the box.

Eek no, what box?  Unless you just mean posting here?  Your defence will be emailed as a full signed document.

georgeireland

Coupon-mad said:

Removed a bit to fit into the box.

Eek no, what box?  Unless you just mean posting here?  Your defence will be emailed as a full signed document.

Yes, sorry! That's what I meant (the character limit on forum posts). I have the email address saved from the guide.

Yeah, I'll check in on the mobile branch and restaurant tomorrow and amend if need be!

You've all been wonderfully supportive. I can't thank you all enough.