A

KeithP

Daver1978 said:

Can I still use this following statement to DCB legal team when sending a SAR to CEL?

Daver1978 said:

(a) I am seeking debt advice but I deny any debt and the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017.

(b) I have sent your client a SAR

(c) also confirm your correct 'address for service' if you've moved and the PPC has two addresses.

No, but your wife can send a SAR to the Claimant. She is the Defendant.

(a) and (c) on your list are not applicable.

Daver1978 said:

I've sent acknowledgement of service.

Hopefully you mean your wife has flied an Acknowledgment of service.

Daver1978 said:

My wife had previously made them aware she wasn't driving.

What's the relevance of that?
Your wife has a County Court Claim filed against her.
Your wife is the person who must defend herself against that claim - with your help of course - but you simply cannot take over.

KeithP

Daver1978 said:

Hi, would yous be able to give me a little further advice on my defence...

No, sorry. You have no need for a Defence, remember?  

[Deleted User]

I see my mistake, "my defence". Working nights, brain's not firing on all cylinders.

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your wife's County Court Claim Form?

Upon what date did your wife file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your wife's MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Mouse007

As everyone in my household now knows - if it ain't working - reboot before asking me (that includes the bloody kettle)

WHO IS THE DEFENDANT?

You need to reboot your thinking because it's going to get messy if you keep talking wrong

[Deleted User]

Issue date 05/01/2023.
AOS was completed online yesterday.

KeithP

Daver1978 said:

Issue date 05/01/2023.
AOS was completed online yesterday.

With a Claim Issue Date of 6th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, your wife has until 4pm on Wednesday 8th February 2023 to file a Defence.

That's well over three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave 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'.

[Deleted User]

Thankyou for all your help, it is greatly appreciated.
Just have to look at where I go with para 2 and 3 of my wifes defence😉 as to know what is of any relevance to my wife. 
I think the struggle is the gym apparently managed to have 2 PCN'S cancelled but unfortunately all email trails were between myself and the land owners manager. So wish the ccbc claim was against myself and I had asked your advice earlier in this issue.

Coupon-mad

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.  However, the Defendant denies liability for any sum at all, and was not the driver at the material time.

3. The driver (the Defendant's partner) was a member of Snap Fitness, a site where over a period of months, angry gym members found themselves targeted and issued with unjustified and punitive parking charges, like confetti.  The car that is registered to the Defendant was targeted more than once.

4.  The gym manager (landowner) cancelled two parking charges for the driver and the Defendant will supply in evidence, email trails to prove that the gym did not support 'fines' against their patrons.  The manager was horrified at the detrimental effect on his business. The situation soon ran out of control, operating as an automated bulk 'PCN generator' with no human intervention, as ANPR regimes do.  Unlike in the infamous Supreme Court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, there is and was no 'legitimate interest' nor a compelling 'commercial justification' to support the charges. This Claimant's approach was to cancel some parking charges (to keep their principal sweet, it appears) yet sue over others that were missed by the gym manager's efforts to cancel them all.  Hence this meritless claim.

5.  The only sign at the entrance to the car park is (cynically or negligently) placed on the gate, which is in the open position to allow patrons to enter the gym.  Thus, no parking management sign is visible to cars entering.  This is a specific breach of the 'mandatory entrance signs' section of the British Parking Association's Code of Practice which requires large and prominent entrance signage which must be visible 'without a driver having to look away from the road ahead'.

6. The Parking Charge Notice ('PCN') relating to this claim was sent to a previous address.  The Defendant was unaware and unable to appeal, nor could she transfer liability to the driver (it was reasonably believed that all charges had been cancelled in any case).  Keeper liability is not automatic on private land.  It is not admitted that this Claimant has complied with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.   Omissions include but are not limited to:

(i). no Notice to Keeper was served and
(ii). the lack of prominent entrance signage, which fails the requirement for 'adequate notice' of the extortionate £100 parking charge.

7.  Further and in the alternative, the Defendant challenges the Claimant's locus to litigate.  The Defendant was not driving, but understands that at least one sign on site identifies 'Snap Fitness' as the landowner (the Principal).  This contention is further supported by the fact that Snap Fitness were in a position to order their agent to cancel 'PCNs'. Further, the Defendant's research has revealed that the Claimant's standard wordy signs state in the small print that their role is to 'enforce', 'monitor' and 'patrol'.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of all wording on all signs on site at the material time, including the Snap Fitness signs.

7.1. The Defendant avers that this Claimant's limited function is merely administrative; to facilitate terms offered by the principal and act as a paperwork processing 'back office' agent, tasked with 'contacting the DVLA' and 'issuing PCNs' only. This limited function as agents is confirmed in the Claimant's own Linked In page at https://www.linkedin.com/company/civil-enforcement-ltd where they proclaim 'Civil Enforcement Ltd process and administer Parking Charge Notices (PCN's) on the behalf of UK Small Businesses and Major UK Brands.'

7.2.  Unlike in the Beavis case, the Defendant avers that this Claimant's signs at the time contained no sentence that offers or attempts to create a contract between the parking operator and a driver.  A parking management firm could use wording to make themselves personally liable on the contract and they could make a contractual offer themselves by saying 'by parking at this site you, the driver, are entering into a contract with us' (or words to that effect) but it is the Defendant's honest belief that there was no such contract on the signs and at no point is a driver told that they are entering into any contractual relationship at all.

7.3.  Therefore, unlike in the Beavis case, this Claimant has placed their service, and themselves, in the position of an agent/broker/middle-man, making the bargain/offering terms and consideration - in the form of parking spaces - on behalf of another party, who is disclosed on signage as the principal landowner.  The Claimant is put to strict proof, if their position is to the contrary of that stated by this Defendant, who takes the point that the principles established by the authority of Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169 apply and there was no contractual relationship between this Claimant and the driver.  The driver's only agreed contract for all services offered by Snap Fitness - including a right or grant of parking spaces for members - was with the gym alone.

[Deleted User]

Thanks Coupin-mad that's excellent, can't thank you guys enough.