Civil National Business Centre - Claim Form details

davemcc

I was involved with CAR PARK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (CPMS) LTD a couple of years ago and COVID intervened.

I have now received a Claim Form from CNBC. The Particulars of Claim are set out, thus;

"The Claim is for £200 for 3 unpaid parking charges due from the Defendant following contractual breaches which occurred between 30/04/21 and 12/05/21 on private land operated and managed by the Claimant by the driver of vehicle registration mark ***OM.

The terms and conditions displayed at the private car park, which was lawfully occupied by the Claimant, offered the driver a contractual licence.

The terms and conditions were accepted by the driver and subsequently breached on each occasion. Despite demands, the parking charges remain unpaid.

The Claimant also claims £80.00 recovery costs as set out in the terms and conditions and in the ATA AoS Code of Practice."

I was resident in the flats at the time that these tickets were issued (owning one of the flats and having a Car Parking Space described in the Particulars of the Lease for my apartment).

I did not have a 'permit' at the time as the Managing Agent had not issued a permit to me.

There are a number of problems that I feel are relevant to my challenge to these tickets;

1 - the Contract (Lease) states in The Fifth Schedule General Provisions paragraph 5 Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 "The parties confirm that notwithstanding any other provisions of this Lease this Lease shall not and shall not purport to confer on any third party any benefit or any right to enforce any term of this Lease pursuant to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999."

2 - The Claimant is purporting to licence parking without my permissionon a per 24 hour basis.

3 - The Claimant is purporting to claim entitlement to licence parking to me notwithstanding the pre-existing right to park.

4 - The contract is impossible to perform if enforcement commenced prior to the supply of a permit, which is their obligation.

5 - As a Leaseholder I have a pre-existing right to park in my demised Car Parking Space. Signage erected by the Claimant who is not a party to the Lease is irrelevant to the terms of the Lease.

6 - The Claimant has not demonstrated any right to impose unilateral terms which vary the terms of the Lease. Any such variation to the Lease  must be approved by at least 75% of the Leaseholders pursuant to s37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 and the Defendant is unaware of any such vote having been passed by the residents.

7 - The Claimant has posted signage in the Car Park. The signage at this location fails to create any contractual liability due to the failure to comply with the provisions of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. The purported contract created by the signage is a 'distance contract' as defined in Section 5 of the Regulations, and is therefore subject to the mandatory requirements set out in section 13, relating to the statutory informationwhich must be provided by the Claimant. The Regulations state at 13(1)(a) that the information listed in Schedule 2 must be given or made available to the Consumer in a clear and comprehensible manner. The Claimant's notice fails to comply with various clauses of Schedule 2, as follows:

(c) it fails to state the geographical address at which the trader is established (this has, later, been rectified but at the time of the "offences" the notices were silent regarding this)

(d) it fails to state where the trader is acting on behalf of another trader, the geographical address and identity of that trader

(e) it fails to state that if different to the address provided in accordance with paragraph (c) the geographical address of the place of business of the trader, and where the trader acts on behalf of another trader, the geographical address of the place of business of that other trader, where the consumer can address any complaints.

There are other issues which I can address, if necessary but there appears, also, to be an issue with the Particulars set out on the Claim Form.

Specifically, that the details of the Parking tickets are not given and the specific time and date of issue are not given. 

 

Castle

davemcc said:

I was involved with CAR PARK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (CPMS) LTD a couple of years ago and COVID intervened.

No such company!

davemcc

Ooops - Car Park Management Services (CPMS) Ltd (apologies)

KeithP

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

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, on what date did you do that?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that last question.

Coupon-mad

davemcc said:

Ooops - Car Park Management Services (CPMS) Ltd (apologies)

It can't be £200 for three PCNs and can't be £80 added. Please post an actial photo of the POC with your VRM covered.

Which solicitor?

And please nswer KeithP's questions too.

Coupon-mad

Here is the Claim Form - Claim dated 20 Nov 2023.

I have not yet filed an Acknowledgement of Service.

I've reported that post as it shows your data!
Take that post down immediately!

Here's a redacted version.

Fascinated to see 3 PCNs claimed for £200(?) which doesn't even add up.  Only two dates given, not three.

Nothing to say the basis on which this Defendant is pursued: keeper? Driver? And £80 added, despite the Code of Practice capping it at £70.

Easy to defend using the extra wording and Chan case transcript already linked for everyone in the Template Defence third paragraph.

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 20th November, you have until Monday 11th December to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Thursday 28th December 2023 to file your Defence.

That's over four 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 again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

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'.

Castle

Coupon-mad said:

Fascinated to see 3 PCNs claimed for £200(?) which doesn't even add up.  Only two dates given, not three.

Nothing to say the basis on which this Defendant is pursued: keeper? Driver? And £80 added, despite the Code of Practice capping it at £70.

Easy to defend using the extra wording and Chan case transcript already linked for everyone in the Template Defence third paragraph.

Even worse, it says, the breaches occurred between the two dates-so, pick any 2 or 3 from 13 to guess when.

Question for the OP-has the location been redacted on the P.O.C or is it simply missing?

Coupon-mad

Good spot! Looks like a child wrote this POC!

davemcc

Thanks for the information provided, it is really appreciated.

I'll get on to this over the weekend.

davemcc

I've now reached the point where it is difficult to argue the 'facts' set out in the Claim Form - because they are so vague.

As outlined in various responses (above) from Castle and Coupon-mad the claim appears to be very vague.

I've (finally) found the transcript to the Chan case and it appears that there is a brief reference to the type of claim that I dispute. Is it necessary to highlight that reference or to simply reproduce the transcript in its' entireity?