Private parking transferred to GCTT certificated enforcement agents (bailiffs)

Umkomaas

Ignore ZZPS, ignore CGTT. Same outfits!

B789

@tennisrookie, please start your own thread if you have questions... after reading the Newbies/FAQ thread, which answers most questions anyway.

patient_dream

Umkomaas said:

Ignore ZZPS, ignore CGTT. Same outfits!

YES ...... ZZZPS doing a WONGA  with CGTT

That will go into the forthcoming consultation

Grizebeck

tennisrookie said:

grandanat said:

Hi,
I overstayed in a retail park(cca 25min) and I got a parking penalty charge notice that I missed, then a debt collection notice from ZZPS, and now a letter from GTCC as attached.

Did anyone faced a similar situation? 
I thught private parking notice don't go to bailiffs, at least not before going through court.

The sender address on GTCC letter is the same as ZZPS, does this mean anything?

I'm ready to appeal the charge based on the fact that the sign was not clear, but I did not get a chance, so I suppose I'll have to challenge it in court.


Thank you!

Hi - sorry to bother you - just wondered if you ended up having to pay this as we’ve had a letter from “ZZPS” saying we owe £170 and, like you, missed the original “parking charge notice”?  Thanks.

Why would they have to pay it.
Please do tell

Coupon-mad

tennisrookie said:

grandanat said:

Hi,
I overstayed in a retail park(cca 25min) and I got a parking penalty charge notice that I missed, then a debt collection notice from ZZPS, and now a letter from GTCC as attached.

Did anyone faced a similar situation? 
I thught private parking notice don't go to bailiffs, at least not before going through court.

The sender address on GTCC letter is the same as ZZPS,

Hi - sorry to bother you - just wondered if you ended up having to pay this as we’ve had a letter from “ZZPS” saying we owe £170 and, like you, missed the original “parking charge notice”?  Thanks.

Of course they didn't pay.  No-one pays.

Please read the NEWBIES thread 4th post.

Just ignore.

DO NOT PHONE THEM.  NO PAYING!  Nothing to fret about.  Stop taking £170 inflated threatograms so seriously.

Just ignore all the daft third party debt demands for £170, and come back if you get a court claim or solicitor's LBC (see 2nd and 4th posts of the NEWBIES thread at the top of this forum).

There's no risk and certainly don't pay it!

Tell the parking firm and debt crawlers if you move house though; you must never leave a PPC with a possible old address to send a claim form to, years down the line, because they can and do cause CCJs that way.

Claims 'unseen' arriving at an old address are risky but all is OK as long as you are seeing all the laughable letters and DON'T ignore a court claim.

grandanat

tennisrookie said:

Hi - sorry to bother you - just wondered if you ended up having to pay this as we’ve had a letter from “ZZPS” saying we owe £170 and, like you, missed the original “parking charge notice”?  Thanks.

I got a court claim and I'm just preparing my defence

Coupon-mad

No worries, what's the date of issue of the court claim form?

grandanat

Coupon-mad said:

No worries, what's the date of issue of the court claim form?

Cour claim on 16th June. AOS 21st June
I am writing now the defence but it seems an impossible task

KeithP

grandanat said:

Coupon-mad said:

No worries, what's the date of issue of the court claim form?

16 June
I am writing now the defence but it seems an impossible task

With a Claim Issue Date of 16th June, you had until Wednesday 5th July to file an Acknowledgment of Service. Did you do that?

Assuming filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 19th July 2023 to file your Defence.

That's just a few days away but plenty of time to produce a Defence.

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 an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that 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'.

grandanat

Does my defence looks ok? 

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

3. The Driver was a patron at Dunelm and B&Q stores within the retail park and did shopping there, and therefore a genuine customer who remained on site throughout their visit. 

4. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was not enforcing any limit duration during the day hours and the duration limit applies only between 22:30 and 6:60, and no consideration flowed between the driver and the Claimant. The retail park is known as free parking and inadequate signage and lack of clear indication when the duration limit applies, which I believe makes this a potentially predatory situation.

5. 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.

6. 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”

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

9. 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

10. 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.'"

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

.

Paragraph 5 onwards are copy-paste from template and other defences