County court defence for taking an innocent nap in a motorway service

Half_way

Are the signs illuminated?

The whole 2 hours max stay thing at MSA's is counter to safety the excuse is that people will park all day and use the areas for lift sharing therefore clogging up the car parks - if that was the concern the the limit would be at least  6 hours .

 Motorway service areas have been around for much longer than PPCs and parking at them has only been an issue thanks to the antics of unregulated parking company's

Rae287

Thanks for flagging this @turnitround I need to be clearer.
I was just under 100 miles from home - I said 180 minutes because I was driving a very heavy old 'classic' vehicle - max speed 55mph at best, terrible on hills and heavy in traffic and slow on country roads - also adding to the tiredness- not an easy drive. so yes sounds a bit stretched by most of todays vehicle standards but this vehicle didn't make life easy - I'll include an explanation to be clear.

Also the reason I've included the contextual information about regulations at that time is to illustrate that I was exhausted not just from driving and it would have been unsafe fro me to continue. It's not really for anyone to say how much driving makes someone tired. Why on earth would I sleep in Blyth Service station unless I had to. It's far from a minibreak destination. 

I will revisit the services to see these signs that I missed. I didn't leave my car so I'm interested to see how visible they are to drivers. I have never before heard of minimum stays in motorway services - charges for overnight of course but not for day time rest stops.

Fruitcake

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

3. On the material date the defendant was returning from a 400-mile round trip to visit family outdoors for the first time since the start of the Covid19 Pandemic. 
Whilst approximately 3 hours from home on the return journey, the defendant felt dangerously tired so stopped at Blyth Moto motorway service to rest in accordance with the government's Tiredness Kills and Take a Break campaign, warning motorists not to drive when tired.

The defendant pulled into a parking bay close to the entrance at the back of the carpark, locked the door and fell asleep for several hours. On waking, the defendant continued her journey home.

No signs with parking contractual terms limiting the time a motorist should rest when tired were present where the defendant's vehicle was parked, and the claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true.

The defendant was surprised later to receive a parking charge notice (PCN) from a company called CP Plus, but did not respond because they believed this to be a scam since forcing a tired motorist to drive whilst tired directly contradicted the Department for Transport's “THINK! Fatigue” driving tiredness campaign encourage motorists to “take breaks and rest rather than drive when tired” and to “Make time for a break”. 

patient_dream

Rae287 said:

Quickly to add that the claimant is CP Plus, represented by DCB Legal Ltd
Amount claimed is £194.28 + £35 court fee + £50 Legal costs - Total £297.28

Amount claimed is £194.28 ???

DCBL are scamming you as no parking ticket is that amount.
With each DCBL claim they become a more saddened company who are holding the government in contempt
 because government has BANNED these fake charges.

Where do they get the fakery from ?  
The BPA of course who in 2018 in their unegulated code of practice told PPC's they can add £60/£70 for dent collection.
Totally against what the Supreme court said which was that the cost of the ticket was set to include recovery

This is all dreamworld stuff by the BPA which was invented by a BPA board member who also runs ZZPS, one of the half baked debt collectors who scam people.

It is because the BPA told it's members they could add fakes
that government has acted and BANNED THE FAKES,

DCBL will have added a fake £60/£70. The rest will be interest based @8% ???   They rely on an old County Court act back in the 80's but judges live in 2022 and know such rates are out dated, 99% of judges will dismiss this.

So what is the fake DCBL add. ?
It would be foolhardy for them to think that the BPA 2018 code of practice is legal. It would be foolhardy to claim debt recovery charges as the debt collectors offer a "no win no fee" to the PPC's.  In you case, CP Plus would have to prove they paid one of the debt clowns.

DCBL of late fabricate these fakes as "damages" ?  whatever that means .... it's still a fake charge  and fake charges have been banned by government ....
They sign this off as a statement of truth which they sign.
But hold on, a statement of truth tells a judge they are telling the truth ... WOOPS  GOVERNMENT HAS BANNED FAKES

In your case with CP Plus  and MOTO.  There was a time when MOTO would cancel these tickets but now they seem to support the scammer.  

I think the Transport secretary knows all about the scam on motorway services but choses to do nothing.  The problem is the signs on motorways saying "take a break"   There is no indication that a time limit applies

You are right to contact the Transport secretary. Copy in your MP for them to investigate.  Plus copy in Neil O'Brien MP who is in charge of the new code of practice and the ban on fake charges. Mr O'Brien must be made aware that the likes of DCBL are still taking people to court adding these banned amounts

Coupon-mad

Fruitcake said:

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

3. On the material date the defendant was returning from a 400-mile round trip to visit family outdoors for the first time since the start of the Covid19 Pandemic. 
Whilst approximately 3 hours from home on the return journey, the defendant felt dangerously tired so stopped at Blyth Moto motorway service to rest in accordance with the government's Tiredness Kills and Take a Break campaign, warning motorists not to drive when tired.

The defendant pulled into a parking bay close to the entrance at the back of the carpark, locked the door and fell asleep for several hours. On waking, the defendant continued her journey home.

No signs with parking contractual terms limiting the time a motorist should rest when tired were present where the defendant's vehicle was parked, and the claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true.

The defendant was surprised later to receive a parking charge notice (PCN) from a company called CP Plus, but did not respond because they believed this to be a scam since forcing a tired motorist to drive whilst tired directly contradicted the Department for Transport's “THINK! Fatigue” driving tiredness campaign encourage motorists to “take breaks and rest rather than drive when tired” and to “Make time for a break”. 

Much better as a suggestion.

All paragraphs must be numbered. 

1505grandad

".....Department for Transport's “THINK! Fatigue” driving tiredness campaign (encourage) motorists to “take breaks and rest rather than drive when tired” and to “Make time for a break”."

(encouraging)?

KeithP

Rae287 said:

Issue Date of Claim: 27 April 2022
I filed AOS: 8 May 2022

With a Claim Issue Date of 27th April, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 30th May 2022 to file your Defence.

That's tomorrow.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Rae287

My goodness, Thank you so much @Fruitcake for this.
I am so grateful for your generosity and skill, your defence is clear and professional and I feel much better being able to put it in those terms. Thank you!

Thank you also @Coupon-mad and @KeithP and to everyone who helped pull this together. 
How on earth would any of us be able to do this without your work and research. It's so important.

I've submitted my defence, made notes of the next steps and I'll keep you posted.

Rae287

Thanks @patient_dream its really useful to get this information and Im encouraged to take the complaint further. I appreciate your input, thank you

Coupon-mad

So you slotted that into the long template defence, renumbered all the paragraphs which will now be more than 30, added the right info in the headings, signed and dated it and saved it as a PDF, and emailed it to the CCBC and the solicitor?

Did CCBC acknowledge by immediate auto-email?

Have you re-read the first 12 steps spelt out in the Template Defence first post so you don't have to come back here in June and ask us about the basics, including the first letters and questionnaire form?