ccj for parking fine

rms22

B789 said:

rms22 said:
Yes, on the 1st of March I sent the SAR to them. 

But you've had this on your plate for some time. Why have you only sent your SAR just over two weeks ago? This has been going on since at least August 2022.

I think perhaps it's because I read threads such as Brokenchief's where there's no mention of needing to draft a defence nor mentions of SARs at that particular stage of having discovered a ccj, as it was about getting the ccj set aside, writing the WS to highlight CEL's unreasonable conduct along with the SA, evidence and 4 case authorities to have the case dismissed and thrown out....and naively assuming, that I'd be able to at least be allowed to talk at the hearing and put my point across. Turns out I shouldn't have assumed that as the hearing was finished within a minute - I was told the address given by the DVLA was fine for them to use, there would be no costs and was asked if I had any details of the claim (no) and they would therefore be sent to me.

Coupon-mad

It doesn't matter. No worries. You know we have a Template Defence because it's a sticky thread at the top of the forum, so it can be done in an hour.

Remind us which PPC and which solicitor, and which car park and why a PCN was issued?

Then go read some defence threads about the same company or type of location.

rms22

Coupon-mad said:

It doesn't matter.  

You know we have a Template Defence because it's a sticky thread at the top of the forum, so it can be done in an hour.

Remind us which PPC and which solicitor, and which car park and why a PCN was issued?

Then go read dome defence threads about the same company or type of location.

The PPC is CEL, their solicitor - I'm not sure who their solicitor is. The only things I've received from them is a letter from DCBL and the email I received from their barrister and their head of legal and compliance at CEL.

The car park is this one:

https://www.portofwells.co.uk/2022/10/21/port-of-wells-quayside-car-park/

Actually just realised I do have the PoC (attached to the order)

Coupon-mad

OK, so CEL put in the claim themselves.  

What an incoherent set of Particulars!

I'd copy and adapt the defence by @Johny86 which lends itself to this case, just amending para 2 and editing para 3 to add any facts you do know.

Show us your paras 2 and 3 that you create to make Johny86's defence your own, and we'll then find a suitable place to put in the Fairlie v Fenton argument used in other Wells defences (because the contract appears to be offered by the Harbour Commissioner and CEL have no standing to sue).

I'd also like to push hard to argue 'wholly unreasonable conduct' to get all your costs awarded and maybe even consider a counterclaim for DPA breach (data misuse) to stop CEL discontinuing and to recoup your £275 that way...

Anyway show us your 2 and 3 paragraph drafts, after you've read the forum's template defence (DO NOT EMAIL ANYTHING TO THE CCBC AS THAT THREAD ADVISES BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT DEALING WITH THAT CLAIM ADMIN CENTRE).

B789

Coupon-mad said:

...(because the contract appears to be offered by the Harbour Commissioner and CEL have no standing to sue).

I had a brief look at some of the WHC meetings minutes which are available on their site going back to Jan 2020. Whilst the PCN is from back in 2018, those minutes reference the car park and PCNs and problems with signage. It will be worthwhile seeing the contract from the time of the PCN to see whether CEL were indeed agents for WHC.

https://www.portofwells.co.uk/public-records/

Interestingly, this from their last published annual report to Dec 2021;

Car Park

There continues to be much social media debate about the parking enforcement regulations on the quayside car park. All the commissioners expect is for people to purchase a valid ticket at the machines, as we are a business just like any other and we rely on the income from the car park to pay for the upkeep of equipment, moorings and plant that maintains our beautiful harbour. As with all services the Harbour provides, our contracts are scrutinised frequently and the car park is no exception. To that end, the current operation is under strategic review at the time of writing.

rms22

Thanks, interested also to see what the minutes may have mentioned in 2018. 

My PCN was issued late at night when it was dark and I'm pretty sure that there is no lighting in the car park.

There is this from the Minutes Meeting 27.05.2020 so it's clear there have been / are problems with signage.

Car park - AL asked if any further consideration had been made with regards to putting up extra signage in the car park. RS stated that he didn’t think people would read it and previously when we have introduced our own signage we were told to remove it as it contravened the car park company requirements. AL felt that the wording proposed isn’t the same and that we ought to avoid people receiving PCN’s especially in the current climate. SAC said he will review the contract as he recalled there was mention of signage in the contract and engage with the car park company

B789

Good to use in any defence, especially as signage is obviously a known issue. Interestingly, the PPC told the landowner to "...remove it (extra signs) as it contravened the car park company requirements." Sounds like the PPC wanted to make it as hard as possible for visitors to see signs as it would impact their revenue stream. Not surprising though.

Trainerman

B789 said:

Good to use in any defence, especially as signage is obviously a known issue. Interestingly, the PPC told the landowner to "...remove it (extra signs) as it contravened the car park company requirements." Sounds like the PPC wanted to make it as hard as possible for visitors to see signs as it would impact their revenue stream. Not surprising though.

I just want to endorse that comment. In my view this emphasises exactly how the money grabbing scammers aim to use confusion in order to fill their coffers.

Coupon-mad

No - bin it - that's not the defence on the thread by @Johny86  (<<< that is a link).  His username & profile takes you there!

In fact please delete your post above as that is terrible and I've no idea where you found that ancient, years old defence!

Please delete it in case a newbie copies it.

You have received the POC, you don't need the SAR back first.  That's the point of using the defence by Johny86.

You have a very short deadline to get the defence emailed to the local court and the Claimant's solicitor.

rms22

Apologies for that. I did search, found his profile and found an old thread with defence and CEL in the title, and got a bit tunnel-visioned, but I did wonder because I read your entire defence template earlier and a lot of it was missing and it sounded a lot better, so I was a bit confused!

I was reading through Johny86's thread and can see that a lot of these claims are discontinued in, from what I can gather, basically pertains to a game of brinksmanship from the Claimant - it seems to be that these rogue operators are willing to see how much they can scare people into paying and if the Defendant refuses and rightly stands their ground, that they discontinue and that no hearing ever happens - is this likely to also apply with mine even though CEL themselves have put in the claim and not DCBL? 

I haven't received a claim form yet. So I'm unclear as to what the next steps are.

I think I've found the correct defence now. Apologies for pasting the other paragraphs with it, just trying to make sure I'm on the right page. I assume it's these paragraphs(?) which would then follow with the addition of the paragraphs from your excellent template defence.

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim were an unexpected shock. 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 was a breach of any prominent term, and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars. 

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

3. The Defendant submitted a SAR to the claimant on 01/03/2023 to gain information into the alleged breach of terms. As a significant amount of time has passed since the alleged offence, the exact circumstances surrounding the Defendant's visit to the claimant’s site cannot be recalled.  

4. The Defendant avers that the Claimant failed to serve a Notice to Keeper compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the claimant cannot transfer liability for this charge to the Defendant as keeper of the vehicle. 

5. The Particulars of Claim ('POC') appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action”. 

6. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued. 

7. The POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise (a) the contractual term(s) relied upon; (b) the specifics of any alleged breach of contract; and (c) how the purported and unspecified 'damages' arose and the breakdown of the exaggerated quantum. 

8. The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and requires proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3 

9. The guidance for completing Money Claims Online confirms this and clearly states: "If you do not have enough space to explain your claim online and you need to serve extra, more detailed particulars on the defendant, tick the box that appears after the statement 'you may also send detailed particulars direct to the defendant.'" 

10. No further particulars have been filed and to the Defendant's knowledge, no application asking the court service for more time to serve and/or relief from sanctions has been filed either. 

11. In view of it having been entirely within the Claimant's Solicitors' gift to properly plead the claim at the outset and the claim being for a sum, well within the small claims limit, such that the Defendant considers it disproportionate and at odds with the overriding objective (in the context of a failure by the Claimant to properly comply with rules and practice directions) for a Judge to throw the erring Claimant a lifeline by ordering further particulars (to which a further defence might be filed, followed by further referral to a Judge for directions and allocation) the court is respectfully invited to strike this claim out. 

12. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  To pre-empt the usual template responses from this serial litigator: the court process is outside of the Defendant's life experience and they cannot be criticised for adapting some pre-written wording from a reliable advice resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence.