Received Claim form from County court business centre

abuhafs

After following some of the advice from other threads, i have submitted the details on moneyclaim.gov.uk website. I have typed up a defence document, but need someone to advise if its good enough. 

The threads are very confusing and currently feeling a lot of mental pressure just reading through all this. I have a habit of ignoring things if i feel anxiety (helps to relax). Haven't done anything else yet. 

Would really appreciate help on what to do now in the easiest possible instructions, otherwise will breakdown 

Claimant is Link Parking with BW Legal involved. Issued on 16 June, moneyclaim.gov.uk was filled on 28/29 June.

Coupon-mad

Yes that looks OK to me.  You could add in a reference to Jopson v HomeGuard.

abuhafs

Coupon-mad said:

Yes that looks OK to me.  You could add in a reference to Jopson v Home Guard.

Sorry, who's Jepson v Home Guard? 

And what do i do with the letter now? Thanks

KeithP

abuhafs said:

...i have submitted the details on moneyclaim.gov.uk website.
Issued on 16 June, moneyclaim.gov.uk was filled on 28/29 June.

I am going to assume that translates into...
"The Issue Date on the Claim Form is 16 June and I have filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 28/29 June". 
Please confirm.

With a Claim Issue Date of 16th June, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 19th July 2023 to file your Defence.

That's one week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that 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'.

abuhafs

KeithP said:

abuhafs said:

...i have submitted the details on moneyclaim.gov.uk website.
Issued on 16 June, moneyclaim.gov.uk was filled on 28/29 June.

I am going to assume that translates into...
"The Issue Date on the Claim Form is 16 June and I have filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 28/29 June". 
Please confirm.

With a Claim Issue Date of 16th June, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 19th July 2023 to file your Defence.

That's one week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that 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'.

Yes, Claim form received on 16 June, Acknowledgement sent on 28/29 June.

Re the second post on NEWBIES you mention, should i send a SAR to BW Legal now?

I am travelling in about 10days, so don't want this to drag too much. I will be abroad over the summer holidays so won't see any letters/response until 01 September. Any advice on this would be greatly helpful

B789

Your main concern is getting the defence completed and filed. The SAR is secondary and will come in useful later for your WS. The SAR is sent to the PPC, not the solicitors.

abuhafs

"Send your defence to the CCBCAQ email address given by KeithP"

Anyone can confirm which email address this is? I will now send the letter attached on my first post to CCBCAQ

KeithP

abuhafs said:

"Send your defence to the CCBCAQ email address given by KeithP"

Anyone can confirm which email address this is?

The email address you need is in the twelve point checklist in the opening post of the Template Defence thread.

abuhafs said:

I will now send the letter attached on my first post to CCBCAQ

What does this mean?
Surely you understand that your full Defence is very much more than what you have already shown us?
For a start, @Coupon-mad suggested you added some more stuff - Jopson v Homeguard.
And you will be including the rest of the template Defence won't you?

abuhafs

KeithP said:

abuhafs said:

"Send your defence to the CCBCAQ email address given by KeithP"

Anyone can confirm which email address this is?

The email address you need is in the twelve point checklist in the opening post of the Template Defence thread.

abuhafs said:

I will now send the letter attached on my first post to CCBCAQ

What does this mean?
Surely you understand that your full Defence is very much more than what you have already shown us?
For a start, @Coupon-mad suggested you added some more stuff - Jopson v Homeguard.
And you will be including the rest of the template Defence won't you?

Yep, found the defence thread with the email and checklist - Thanks

Below is part of the Defence document. I've amended paragraph 2 & 3, rest is from the defence.pdf document template, all the way to Statement of Truth and signature.

Apologies, I really don't know what or how to reference in Jopson v Homeguard. All help appreciated greatly

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  XX

Between

Link Parking Limited

(Claimant) 

- and -  

XX

 (Defendant)

_________________

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 and driver of the vehicle.

 

3. On the 6th of October 2022 the defendant had visited family members living in the residential area of St Andrews Village (SAV) but had not parked in the St Andrews Village parking areas. Towards the end of the visit the defendant had requested authorisation from the security to enter the parking of SAV to pickup family consisting of unwell mother and small children. Security had authorised the entry for this purpose and allowed time for loading.

The defendant was occupied in preparing the baggage and the children in the visiting house. During this short period, the defendant did nothing more than what was authorised by security.

The defendant was frequently visiting the house and car for loading, during which a PCN was found on the car immediately after entering the house again to collect more baggage. This PCN had been issued incorrectly to the defendant as it was authorised by security to enter for pickup and load. There was no clear and visible sign to indicate that loading was not permitted, so therefore this PCN was not issued correctly.

The defendant tried to seek explanation for the PCN by asking the residents, who have also mentioned that the claimant is very frequently issuing PCN on vehicles incorrectly and had been challenged by many defendants.

 

4. 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 using, in part, pre-written wording suggested by a reliable online help resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. 

5. With regard to template statements, the Defendant observes after researching other parking claims, that the Particulars of Claim ('POC') set out a cut-and-paste incoherent statement of case.  In breach of the pre-action protocol for 'Debt' Claims, no copy of the contract (sign) accompanied any Letter of Claim.  The POC is sparse on facts and specific breach allegations, which makes it difficult to respond in depth at this time; however this claim is unfair, generic and inflated.  

6.  This Claimant continues to pursue a disproportionate fixed sum (routinely added per PCN) despite knowing that this is now likely to be confirmed as banned by the Government. It is denied that the purported 'damages' or 'debt fee' sought was incurred or is recoverable. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.  Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment.  Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (sitting at the High Court; later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating it to £135 'would appear to be penal'.

7. This finding is underpinned by the Government, who stated in 2022 that attempts to gild the lily by adding 'debt recovery costs' were 'extorting money'.  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') published in February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice, found here: 

...continues to point 27 (Statement of Truth)

Coupon-mad

 I really don't know what or how to reference in Jopson v Homeguard.

Search the forum and copy from someone who wrote it in their defence earlier.  Easy!

We see it used several times, every single month here so there are hundreds of defences with Jopson referenced this past couple of years alone.

abuhafs

Found this..

Parking vs Loading

Jopson V Homeguard 2016  B9GF0A9E Appeal

28 -  Neither party was able to direct the court to any authority on the meaning of the word “park”. However, the Shorter Oxford Dictionary has the following: “To leave a vehicle in a carpark or other reserved space” and “To leave in a suitable place until required.” The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars. Delivery vans, whether for post, newspapers, groceries, or anything else, would not be accommodated on an interpretation which included vehicles stopping for a few moment for these purposes. Discussion in this area left the respondent in obvious difficulties, from which the attractive advocacy of Miss Fenwick was unable to rescue it.

29 Whether a car is parked, or simply stopped, or left for a moment while unloading, or (to take an example discussed in argument) accompanying a frail person inside, must be a question of fact or degree. I think in the end this was agreed. A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be “parked”. Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant delivering a case of wine, and nor, I am satisfied, a retailer’s van, or indeed the appellant, unloading an awkward piece of furniture. Any other approach would leave life in the block of flats close to unworkable, a consideration 9 © Crown Copyright which those instructing Miss Fenwick seemed reluctant to accept. I am quite satisfied, and I find as a fact, that while the appellant’s car had been stationary for more than a minute and without its driver for the same period (whatever precisely it was), while she carried in her desk, it was not “parked”. Accordingly, for that reason too, the appellant was not liable to the charge stipulated in the respondent’s notice.

This was a decision by The House of Lords, which was the UK's highest court of appeal until 2009 and was then replaced by the Supreme Court.  The citations above are from Lord Neuberger.  I expect POPLA know his name because your service continues to labour under the misapprehension that the ParkingEye v Beavis case (where Lord Neuberger was President of the Supreme Court) is the only case from that level that deals with parking law.  It's not.  I trump your beloved Beavis case with the Moncrieff case and the latter has application in a case like mine where any stopping is brief and does not involve actually 'parking and leaving' the car, nor accepting and entering into a contract.  Kindly don't hit the button to quote Beavis at me.  This isn't a case that can be decided with POPLA's template 'computer says no' POPLA paragraph reliance on the only case your Sector Expert has told you about.  Moncrieff is the same level, please read the above definition of parking = 'leaving on a longer term basis').