Claim form - Premier Park, on behalf of my parents.

am1980

Hello, 

I'm helping a parent with a defence for a potential court case. 

So far we have had a claim form ( 13th October) and submitted it online without a defence on 20th. 

I believe we need to submit a defence 28 days after 13th October? 

Premier Parking ltd, with Gladstones as their solicitors. 

Claimant £100 PCN, £70 contractual costs, interest at 8% per annum. Total circa £270 ( I won't input exact amount incase it identifies the defendant) 

My parents cannot remember parking there, if they did they would have tried to use the number plate input machine but must have put it in wrong OR not known there were signs (they have been to the carpark in question to since look at the system used, signs etc). 

Therefore we are unsure as to what we can use as their defence. Any help will be appreciated. 

Also they have not kept any forms relating to this, other than this claim form. Is it too late for a Subject Access Request? 

Another, possibly important bit of info is that I recall submitting a popla appeal at the time, at least thats what I believe it was. Do you know if the other side gets to see this? I would have been careful not to admit to anything, other than "if" my parents had parked there then they would have tried to use the machine or not known there were signs, they are old, poor memory, and I beleive I would have got info from this forum to help me compose it, but as I have no documentation (old computer hd damaged) I don't have specifics. 

Also, am I able to help my parent at court? 

If there are any other threads for me to read please also let me know. 

Many thakns in advance. I successfully defended a previous case thanks to this forum, and would like to do the same for my parent. 

am1980

After reading a little more, it may be important I get hold of a copy of the Popla appeal, if there was one. If this is correct, is there a way to get this? 

KeithP

am1980 said:

So far we have had a claim form ( 13th October) and submitted it online without a defence on 20th. 

I believe we need to submit a defence 28 days after 13th October? 

If you are saying that the Issue Date on the Claim Form is 13th October and an Acknowledgment of Service was filed on 20th October, then you have a few more days than you thought.

With a Claim Issue Date of 13th October, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 15th November 2022 to file your Defence.

That's nearly two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see you are not leaving it to the last minute.

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'.

Everywhere I have written 'you' or 'your' I do of course mean the named Defendant.

am1980 said:

Also they have not kept any forms relating to this, other than this claim form. Is it too late for a Subject Access Request? 

Never too late for a SAR. The information returned will be far more use at Witness Statement time.

am1980 said:

Also, am I able to help my parent at court? 

Yes, as a Lay Representative.
Have a read of The Lay Representatives (Rights of Audience) Order 1999

KeithP

am1980 said:

After reading a little more, it may be important I get hold of a copy of the Popla appeal, if there was one. If this is correct, is there a way to get this? 

Send a Subject Access Request to PoPLA asking specifically for it.
You might also ask them for a copy of their response to that PoPLA appeal.

Or rather... the appellant should send a SAR to PoPLA.

am1980

Brilliant, thank you @keithp . I'll ensure to do the SAR's right away and get drafting the statement (likely next week now).

If you don't mind, I'll post the draft defence here once complete. 

We believe that the carpark company has since changed, therefore unsure as to what use it will be discussing in any detail the signs that are there now. Once we receive info from the SAR's, will this likely give us information we can use in our witness statements relating to the signs? Obviously we will keep the templated information in the defence for now. 

I'm wondering whether we can use both the fact the 'if' my parents used the car park, they a) wouldn't have seen the signs, or been able to read the details whilst trying to find a parking space in a small carpark before an important hospital appointment (which is where the carpark is), AND b) if they did, they would have tried to use the confusing carpark machine and may have input the wrong reg plate (as they have done before, but the land owner that time squashed the 'fine')? Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself here, but want to have the info clear in my head for drafting the defence next week. Thank you once again for the excellent work on this forum. 

am1980

SAR's about to be sent to popla and premier park, emailed and normal post with receipts. Do we (named defendant) not request info from the solicitors?

Coupon-mad

No, they don't hold any data about the Defendant.

am1980

Hi, 

Draft beginning to defence below. The rest beyond this is the template thus far. 

Should we include anything else as a defence? 

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was 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.

 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

 

 

2.1 The Defendant accepts that there were multiple people having lawful access to this vehicle, denies being the driver and denies entering into any agreement with the Defendant.

 

2.2The Defendant now believes that The Claim relates to threatening letters demanding money, which she originally believed were scam letters due to her time working within the Police. There has therefore been no chance to even understand the allegation, let alone discuss or dispute it prior to court action, as should have been the case under the October 2017 pre-action protocol for debt claims.

 

2.3 The Defendant requires a copy of the contract (the signage terms on the material date) and a detailed explanation of the cause of action and on what basis they presume the Defendant liable. The Claim is pursuing the driver/keeper of the vehicle, indicating a failure to identify a Cause of Action. The Claimant is simply offering a menu of choices and failed to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.

 

2.4 The Defendant has been to the carpark in question to try to understand The Claim better, but this only has signs for ‘Park Bee Go’ and seems to bare no relation to Premier Park Limited. The Defendant does not believe she has been provided with photographic evidence of the purported contractual breach.

 

2.5 Since receiving The Claim, The Defendant has sent a subject access request (SAR) to the Claimant and will expand upon the denial of breach in the witness statement. Once the Defendant has seen the details from the SAR and/or in the event that the Court orders the Claimant to file & serve better particulars.

Coupon-mad

If you genuinely know nothing about the PCN then that is about the best you can do, but most of that is meant to be numbered paragraph 3 (otherwise you'll have no paragraph 3!).

Change this:

2.1 The Defendant accepts that there were multiple people having lawful access to this vehicle

to this:

2.1 The Defendant avers that there were multiple people having lawful access to this vehicle

am1980

Thank you. I'll edit the paragraphs. 

We did know about the PCN, but due to the threatening nature of the letters and the disproportionate 'fine' she presumed they were a scam, and (wrongly) treated them as such by throwing them - until now. Should I change the latter part of 2.2 to represent this? 

Are there any other points which could be included? In the mean time I'll look for some other good examples of statements in the hope of discovering some ideas, and would also be grateful if you can point me in the direction of some good examples. 

1505grandad

If you are keeping the rest of the sentence re above i.e:-

"...denies being the driver and denies entering into any agreement with the Defendant."

of course it is "Claimant" not "D" you should be stating.