Shoddy Claim Form Euro Car Parks / QDR Solicitors

Tiredofbeingdone

Hello forum members & moderators! Thank you all so much for your time and interest.

I received a very shoddily completed Euro Car Park/QDR initiated CNBC Claim Form with an Issue Date of 4th Jan (Someone was feeling angry after Christmas break!). I know there are a few other similar current cases on this forum and have been following their stories with interest, however I do have a couple of questions specific to my case or questions that don’t seem to have been answered in the others’ that I would welcome a bit of help with.

Acknowledgement of service has gone to CNBC so I believe I have until 6th Feb to submit my defence.

I have carefully read “NEWBIES” and associated template, and I am drafting my defence, but I have a few questions:

1. The date of issue of the claim form is 4th Jan. The “detailed” Particulars of Claim (such as they are) dated 19th Jan were received on 23rd Jan, is this in-time? I know they have to be delivered within 14 days but I’m uncertain of which start date applies – the Issue Date or the deemed Service Date.

2. In the separate Particulars of Claim, the scant Schedule 1 – details of parking charges sets out an incorrect date 06/10/2022 (instead of 10/06/2022, when the breach is said to have occurred). The car was nowhere near the car park in question on the 6/10 – is this enough of a defence in itself or do I need to be tolerant of a typo?

3. Regarding the original alleged breach. Although I can’t recall exact values, I’m quite careful about this kind of thing and know I would not have deliberately underpaid. It was a coin operated P&D machine and I suspect one of the coins didn’t register with the mechanism got rejected -  with kids and dogs etc. in tow I didn’t notice, took the ticket, displayed and walked off.

A couple of weeks later (P&D ticket long-gone) I was surprised to receive a NTK. In the NTK are timed photos of the number plate arriving and leaving with a single line ”The P&D/permit purchased did not cover the date and time of parking” as the apparent “breach”. I didn’t understand this and wanted clarification & more details. Now, there is no way to contact Euro Car Parks about a NTK except for paying or using the appeal form, I used the appeal form to ask for more details which they finally answered on 2/8/22.

In the response to my query – which ECP describe as a “letter of appeal” – they told me “You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure”. My view is that this was a query, not an appeal, and consequently ECP have arbitrarily revoked my right of appeal. Do members of the forum agree with me, and is this an angle in my defence?

I have not engaged with ECP, QDR or any of their dodgy debt collectors since receiving the query/”appeal” response in August 2022.

Thanks again for your support and I am posting scans of documents in this post.

patient_dream

The claim made me laugh

THE £170
What are QDR on about when they say ... "Plus contractual charges of the £70
incurred in the collection of the debt" <<<< WHAT UTTER RUBBISH

Bet tthe signs in the small print never said that

THE SUPREME COURT
Like all these low grade legals, they fail to understand the Beavis case. 
The Supreme Court ruled that the charge of the ticket was fair as it included the cost of operating the scheme .... IE NO ADD-ONS OR ADDED FAKERY

And QDR signed all this as a STATEMENT OF TRUTH

You won't have to buy laughing gas for the judge, THIS CLAIM AND STATEMENT should have him/her rolling about the chambers

Coupon-mad

1.  It's from the deemed date of service, so just in time.

2.  It is a massive point - your main point - because (am I right?) the correct date isn't stated anywhere?!

You can outright deny that the vehicle or the Defendant was at that site in 6/10/2022 as well as point out that the claim form POC gave no date and referred to 'multiple PCNs'.  It is denied that multiple PCNs were issued to the registered keeper and further denied that any breach occurred on the date shown on the schedule. There is no PCN relating to a visit on 6/10/2022.

I think solicitor posters here @Johnersh  and @troublemaker22 and legally-trained parking law expert poster @bargepole might be along to advise you not to use the Template Defence in your case & be much more concise. 

3. I would not mention it in view of the killer blow in 2. See what the legal minds think.

Le_Kirk

The incorrect POC on the claim form are corrected (unfortunately) in the detailed POC - does this matter? Also is it a case of the dates being US v UK format - obviously the OP keeps schtum about that.

Coupon-mad

Le_Kirk said:

The incorrect POC on the claim form are corrected (unfortunately) in the detailed POC - does this matter? Also is it a case of the dates being US v UK format - obviously the OP keeps schtum about that.

No they aren't! 

troublemaker22

I'd be inclined to go against the grain of the usual advice here and lodge a short sweet defence via MCOL and not by email.  Something along the following lines.

1.      The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the sum claimed and save as expressly stated below makes no admissions.

2.  The Defendant admits to being the registered keeper of the vehicle but does not admit to any of the other facts alleged in the particulars of claim, as to which the Claimant is put to strict proof.

3.  Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Defendant denies that the vehicle specified in the particulars of claim was present at the site specified in the particulars of claim at the date and time specified in the detailed particulars of claim or that any contract or agreement was entered into as alleged therein or in the short particulars of claim contained in the claim form;

[4 etc , the usual objection to the extra £70 and other selected highlights from the Template Defence]

Not sure what (if anything) to make of the error about multiple PCNs that was corrected in the detailed POC.

Fruitcake

I would challenge the statement after 6 b of the claim where it states, 

"All charges are fair and reasonable and are in line with the British Parking Association's guidelines and have been tested in the Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67."

I know it's already in the template defence, but I would draw the court's attention to the fact that the fake add on £70 claim for losses was specifically disallowed, meaning that part of the PoC is false.

I'm not sure what to make of the amended detailed PoC either. However, the claim form issue is date is given as the 4th of January, and it is to this that the OP has addressed their defence. The amended PoC came later, dated the 19th of January.
IANAL, but I wonder if Thornton v Shoe Lane could be argued here in that the amended PoC came after the contract (the original claim) had been made and acknowledged (agreed) by the defendant, and the amendment came too late.

Other things that need clarifying are whether or not the amended PoC were served to the court, whether a fee would/should be paid to the court in the same way that an amended defence would attract a fee, or whether the original claim should be struck out, or whether the claimant should discontinue the original claim and issue another one with the correct PoC.

In all cases, the defendant is left wondering if there are still other PCNs/claims in the pipeline, which would be unreasonable. 

patient_dream

Fruitcake said:

I would challenge the statement after 6 b of the claim where it states, 

"All charges are fair and reasonable and are in line with the British Parking Association's guidelines and have been tested in the Supreme Court in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67."

The QDR statement is FALSE, MISLEADING and a feeble attempt to confuse the court. 

The Supreme court NEVER ruled on a £100 parking charge or the fake add-on

The Supreme court ruled on a £85 charge saying it was amount included the operation of the scheme. This is in the public domain

The BPA then increased the charge to £100 and then introduced the £60/£70 as a debt collection charge which is now known as the OSNER scam

There must be grave doubts about the BPA and in future must be known as the the BPA SCANDAL

troublemaker22

Fruitcake said:

… I wonder if Thornton v Shoe Lane could be argued here in that the amended PoC came after the contract (the original claim) had been made and acknowledged (agreed) by the defendant, and the amendment came too late.

I can’t see how Thornton v Shoe Lane could be relevant. That case is all about when the process of forming a contact (aka agreement) by offer and acceptance has been completed after which one party can’t introduce new terms without the agreement of the other party.  Exchanging pleadings in litigation is not a process of offer and acceptance leading to an agreement between the parties. It’s a process whereby two parties who are not in agreement set out their respective cases for the court to rule on. 

Coupon-mad

And it was served in time.

Tiredofbeingdone

Many thanks everyone for your wise words.

Defence now submitted based largely on Troublemaker's input - very grateful.

I'll be sure to update the group when I hear more.