My court defence v Captial car park control

Jenni_D

What date was on the NTD? (This will determine whether the company at that time was Ltd or not - what's important is what company was named on the signs at the time, not now).

Did you respond to (appeal) the NTD? (If not then how have they sent you a court claim? If a NTD is not responded to then they need to send an NTK to the registered keeper to have any prospect of holding a keeper liable for a charge).

ldnpt

Coupon-mad said:

ldnpt said:

Umkomaas said:

You need to be checking the PPC name shown on the original NtK, the name of the PPC shown on the signage, the name of the claimant shown on the court claim form and (eventually) the name of the PPC shown on the landowner contract. 

Capital Car Park Control Ltd only came into formal existence on 24 August 2020. The owner is one Terence Szmidt, erstwhile sole trader/owner of Terry Szmidt T/A Capital Car Park Control (no 'Ltd', no longer trading), two totally different organisations.  He cannot mix the two operations to sue under one name for a parking charge incurred under the name of the other organisation. 

Do a forum search on 'Szmidt' and read previous threads to inform you of the nuances here, if the two organisations are jumbled together in his claim against you. 

Thanks.

The claim for has Terry Szmidt T/A Capital Car Park Control, SVS House, Oliver Grove, London SE25 6EJ.

The original PCN's just Capital Car Park Control, SVS House, Oliver Grove, London SE25 6EJ, I only recieved one Notice To Driver, which also has this.

The signs had Capital Car Park Control Ltd, SVS House, Oliver Grove, London, SE25 6EJ.

If you are sure the signs were offering parking from the Ltd company then that must go into your defence.  It's the wrong party suing.  A stranger to the alleged contract (which is in any event, denied).

Yes i'm sure, they even submitted those signs as evidence at the POPPLA appeal.

ldnpt

Jenni_D said:

What date was on the NTD? (This will determine whether the company at that time was Ltd or not - what's important is what company was named on the signs at the time, not now).

Did you respond to (appeal) the NTD? (If not then how have they sent you a court claim? If a NTD is not responded to then they need to send an NTK to the registered keeper to have any prospect of holding a keeper liable for a charge).

The date on the NTD is 16th of Septmeber 21. Although I appealed all three with the PPC, I only appealed two of the PCN's with POPLA, I think I just lost faith in the whole process by the third. The third is the one that is not part of the claim, I haven't recieved a NTD or NTK for this one.

Jenni_D

OK - if the paperwork (and claim) received is not from Ltd, but the signs at the site say Ltd (and did at the time), then previous responses are correct - the wrong party is bringing the claim.  

BTW - if you appealed windscreen notices (NTD) then they would never try to send any NTK (postal notice to keeper).

ldnpt

Castle said:

Have you checked with DVLA to ascertain who asked for your details; looking at the BPA's AOS Members list, only the Ltd company is listed. 

I contacted them but they said I need to fill in a V888 form to do this so it's going to take a while I guess unfortunately.

ldnpt

Here's my updated defence, i've tried to incorporate your feedback, hopefully i've done a decent job. Paragraph 7 i'm not sure if needs to go in there or i'm just repeating myself/sounding too much like a witness statement. Many thanks again for your help.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

3. The claimant is a stranger to the alleged contract. All parking signs on site were in the name of Capital Car Park Control LTD, not Terry Szmidt T/A Capital Car Park Control (the claimant) , two totally different organisations.

4. On the 05/07/2021 the claimant claims that the defendant overstayed the 20 minutes loading/unloading time. According to the terms and conditions of the signage on site there is no maximum stay time once a motorist is registered to park, the signs state “WARNING: PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY: VEHICLES EXCEEDING 20 MINUTES FOR LOADING/UNLOADING MUST BE PRE REGISTERED AS HAVING A VALID PARKING PERMIT BEFORE PARKING” If a motorist is registered for a permit there is no evidence to show that they are only to remain at a set length of time on site. If there is a condition of telling the concierge how long you will be on site and then the permit being valid for this time, as is not stated on the signage, then this does not form part of the contract a motorist enters into.

 

5. The defendant parked, as they had been doing for the past few months, at Greenwich Millenium Village and went to collect a permit from the concierge. The system had now been changed from a physical permit issued to a system where the receptionist inputs the details for the motorist. There was no update or change in the previous signage or any notices anywhere to indicate this change. Due to COVID restrictions the reception had a full closed safety screen on the desk, the motorist’s information is input into a normal computer without a screen that can swivel to face the motorist or a dedicated screen that is already facing the motorist, which makes it very hard to check what has been requested has actually been input into the system. The defendant asked for the permit to run until 7:45pm as the football session that they coach on that particular day and had been for a few months, had always finished at 7:30pm and 7:45pm allowed them enough time to load the equipment back into the car and leave. 

6. On the 06/07/2021 the claimant claims that either the defendant overstayed the allocated time or that they were not registered to park at all, it’s not clear from the PCN issued or their appeals process which is the case making a fair defence at that stage difficult and confusing. In their appeal rejection letter they state at the beginning “However, the parking requirements displayed at the property stipulate that a particular time period is allowed, and our records show that the time period was exceeded on this occasion” If this is the case according to the terms and conditions of the signage on site there is no maximum stay time once a motorist is registered to park, the sign states “WARNING: PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY: VEHICLES EXCEEDING 20 MINUTES FOR LOADING/UNLOADING MUST BE PRE REGISTERED AS HAVING A VALID PARKING PERMIT BEFORE PARKING” If a motorist is registered for a permit there is no evidence to show that they are only to remain at a set length of time on site. If there is a condition of telling the concierge how long you will be on site and then the permit being valid for this time, as is not stated on the signage, then this does not form part of the contract a motorist enters into. Further down the appeal rejection letter they then state “However, if you were authorised to park at the location, your vehicle registration number would have been added to our system which would have showed us you were authorised to park there at the time. Our records show that your vehicle was not authorised to park, it has not been added to the exemption list in question” A copy of the full whitelist for the day was requested but not supplied. The defendant denies this accusation as they had requested a permit to cover their full stay on site from the concierge. A copy of the CCTV or screenshots covering the time that the defendant would’ve been in the concierge’s office requesting the permit was requested but ignored.

7. The defendant parked at Greenwich Millenium village and went to register with the concierge. As above due to COVID restrictions the reception had a full safety screen on the desk and the information was input into a normal computer without a screen that can swivel to face the motorist or a dedicated screen that is already facing the motorist, which makes it very hard to check what you have requested has actually been input into the system, also more often than not the concierge is somebody who’s first language is not english. The concierge confirmed the make, model and colour of the car and the defendant left the office. Again as always for that particular day of the week the defendant asked for the permit to run to 6:45pm allowing them enough time to walk back to the car, load the equipment and leave. 

8. The defendant has stopped parking at the location since the change in process due to the feeling that the claimant’s system is now unfit for purpose and being used to trap motorists unfairly. The defendant is aware of others that have received fines for the same alleged reasons with most ongoing or some having appealed successfully.

9. The burden of proof lies with the claimant and when the defendant asked for a copy of the full parking records for the 06/07/2021, not just a sample, the claimant failed to provide them by ignoring the request. The defendant asked to see the cctv, footage or stills, of the concierge’s office at the time of the alleged incident, this request was ignored. The defendant also requested an example or explanation of the training that was given to staff when changing to the new parking system and what was put in place to mitigate for mistakes which was again ignored. 

10. No signs or equipment were updated when switching over to a new system of registering cars for parking on site. Fundamentally changing the parking process without fair warning.

11. The claimant should advance their whole case against the defendant. There is a third PCN that should be included in this claim.

Jenni_D

5 and 7 seem like the same thing (albeit with different ending times).

Coupon-mad

You DO NOT fill in a V888 for your question about your own vehicle.

ldnpt

Thanks for your ongoing help, hopefully this is my defence as I will submit it. @Jenni_D i've tried to combine paragraph 5 and 7. I 've also added a few more points that i've found on other threads and think are rleveant to my case.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

3. The claimant is a stranger to the alleged contract. All parking signs on site were in the name of Capital Car Park Control LTD, not Terry Szmidt T/A Capital Car Park Control (the claimant) , two totally different organisations.

4. On the 05/07/2021 the claimant claims that the defendant overstayed the 20 minutes loading/unloading time. According to the terms and conditions of the signage on site there is no maximum stay time once a motorist is registered to park, the signs state “WARNING: PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY: VEHICLES EXCEEDING 20 MINUTES FOR LOADING/UNLOADING MUST BE PRE REGISTERED AS HAVING A VALID PARKING PERMIT BEFORE PARKING” If a motorist is registered for a permit there is no evidence to show that they are only to remain at a set length of time on site. If there is a condition of telling the concierge how long you will be on site and then the permit being valid for this time, as is not stated on the signage, then this does not form part of the contract a motorist enters into.

6. On the 06/07/2021 the claimant claims that either the defendant overstayed the allocated time or that they were not registered to park at all, it’s not clear from the PCN issued or their appeals process which is the case making a fair defence at that stage difficult and confusing. In their appeal rejection letter they state at the beginning “However, the parking requirements displayed at the property stipulate that a particular time period is allowed, and our records show that the time period was exceeded on this occasion” If this is the case according to the terms and conditions of the signage on site there is no maximum stay time once a motorist is registered to park, the sign states “WARNING: PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY: VEHICLES EXCEEDING 20 MINUTES FOR LOADING/UNLOADING MUST BE PRE REGISTERED AS HAVING A VALID PARKING PERMIT BEFORE PARKING” If a motorist is registered for a permit there is no evidence to show that they are only to remain at a set length of time on site. If there is a condition of telling the concierge how long you will be on site and then the permit being valid for this time, as is not stated on the signage, then this does not form part of the contract a motorist enters into. Further down the appeal rejection letter they then state “However, if you were authorised to park at the location, your vehicle registration number would have been added to our system which would have showed us you were authorised to park there at the time. Our records show that your vehicle was not authorised to park, it has not been added to the exemption list in question” A copy of the full whitelist for the day was requested but not supplied. The defendant denies this accusation as they had requested a permit to cover their full stay on site from the concierge. A copy of the CCTV or screenshots covering the time that the defendant would’ve been in the concierge’s office requesting the permit was requested but ignored.

7. On both occasions the defendant parked, as they had been doing for the past few months, at Greenwich Millenium Village and went to collect a permit from the concierge. The system had now been changed from a physical permit issued to a system where the receptionist inputs the details for the motorist. There was no update or change in the previous signage or any notices anywhere to indicate this change. Due to COVID restrictions the reception had a full closed safety screen on the desk, the motorist’s information is input into a normal computer without a screen that can swivel to face the motorist or a dedicated screen that is already facing the motorist, which makes it very hard to check what has been requested has actually been input into the system, also more often than not the concierge is somebody who’s first language is not english. The concierge confirmed the make, model and colour of the car and the defendant left the office. The defendant asked for the permits to run until 7:45pm on the 05/07/2021 and 6:45pm on 06/07/2021 as the football session that they coach on those particular days and had been for a few months, had always finished at 7:30pm and 6:30pm respectively, the extra 15 minutes allowed them enough time to load the equipment back into the car and leave.

8. Despite being pre approved to park as working for a local community football club, the defendant has stopped parking at the location since the change in process due to the feeling that the claimant’s system is now unfit for purpose and being used to trap motorists unfairly. The defendant is aware of others that have received fines for the same alleged reasons with most ongoing or some having appealed successfully.

9. The burden of proof lies with the claimant and when the defendant asked for a copy of the full parking records for the 06/07/2021, not just a sample, the claimant failed to provide them by ignoring the request. The defendant asked to see the cctv, footage or stills, of the concierge’s office at the time of the alleged incident, this request was ignored. The defendant also requested an example or explanation of the training that was given to staff when changing to the new parking system and what was put in place to mitigate for mistakes which was again ignored. 

10. The ANPR photos provided with the PCNs don't record parking time, only time on site, don’t include time taking to find a space once inside the car park or drive up to the barrier to exit either.. The car park requires the concierge to raise the barrier for exit and as it’s a multi use concierge for residents of nearby towers, parcel collections and such, there is regularly upwards of a 5 minute wait time for the concierge to raise the barrier. The claimant hasn’t proved that it was not the case on this occasion, they are required to show photos of the vehicle parked, not just at the barrier whilst waiting to be allowed to leave. This is especially important on 06/07/2021 when the claimant alleges that the defendant overstayed the 20 minute loading period by a total of 3 minutes and 51 seconds.

11. No signs or equipment were updated when switching over to a new system of registering cars for parking on site. Fundamentally changing the parking process without fair warning.

12. The claimant should advance their whole case against the defendant. There is a third PCN that should be included in this claim.

Le_Kirk

That, in my opinion is way too long for a defence.  A defence is a series of short punchy legal/technical arguments in the third person.  The arguments should be used to refute what is claimed in the POC  and, provided you have opened the door with those arguments, you can tell the whole story in the narrative that forms the witness statement along with the evidence that backs up the defence; resist the temptation to write War & Peace.