Defence and WS in shight of court day after UK PPO ticket

Redkite22

HI thanks you everybody in advance for your help and precious collaboration.

I’ve already been through the NEWBIES and other Threads and now I need your help to complete my Defence and maybe later to file a strong WS.

 

Background:

-Received parking charge notice by UK Parking Patrol office for my staying in they car park and leaving after 16 minutes in December 2023.

-Appeal through Parking Mate done and rejected.

-IAS rejected (Don’t know why, maybe was to late?)

-The reason I spent this much time inside was that I had to wait for a parking space to free, then I downloaded the app to pay and after this I found out that I was meant to pay for the whole night stay, at that point I decided to leave the car park to go somewhere else.

-From the first notice to today I receive numerous “scary” and Harassing threat letters form Debt Recovery Plus and later BW Legal to recovery this money that went from £100 to £170 to £255 over a year.

 

Now:

-Received the HM Court & Tribunal Service letter issue date 14/02/2025

-Filed AOS through MCOL on the 26/02/2025

-Until 19/03/2025 (28 days after date of service(5 days after issue date)) to file a Defence:

I wrote my defence by using the template found on the NEWBIES but ad I am not a native English speaker and this is my first time doing something like that I would like you to review my statement to make sure I am writing correctly and I should omit/add more information.

My understanding is that maybe I should be leaving all the evidences (for example the signs in the car park are not illuminate, positioned wrong, there are stickers/ tape to cover the previous fares and not  mentioned parking grace period, not mentioned amount of parking charges if not respecting the rules ecc.) 

See the sign in place.. I dont have it from 2023 but the 2024 and 2022 are the same..

This is my defence, all the rest if not mentioned is kept the same as template:

1.  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 in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) 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 boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and the driver of the vehicle

 

3. It is acknowledged the on (Date and Time) the Defendant’s motor vehicle enter the (Address and name of the ca park) Upon arrival the car park was at full capacity, forcing the Defendant to wait for an available parking space. Due to the very limited capacity, the Defendant had to wait a long period of time and after a parking space became available the Defendant parked the vehicle. Information for charges were not clearly displayed at the entrance of the car park and the Defendant was forced to download the car park app, install it and sign up extending the amount of time needed to pay the parking fee. Thought the car park app the Defendant discovered that the amount due was exaggerated as being forced to pay for a whole night stay. At this point the Defendant decided to leave the car park to relocate the vehicle to another parking area.

4. The International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice specifically delineates, in Schedule 1 under the title of "Signage," the following: “If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting.”

5. Signage at this site is unlit and in minuscule text. The Claimant's case is likely to rely upon alleged "clear display" of the terms and conditions. This would be false and misleading. The situation at this location is made worse by poor placement of the sparse signs which are at an angle on approach, cannot be read from a car, tape/ stickers are used to cover/ modify previous fares and information do not meet the statutory requirements for prominence and 'adequate notice'. Any terms and conditions were not seen, let alone agreed. There was no fair opportunity to learn that the car park was subject to any restrictions and it is clear that a contract could not have been formed between the Claimant and the Defendant because the necessary conditions for forming a contract were not met.

6. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

7. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

Please anything helpful is appreciated, I already undesrtand most likely I will have to go to court so I want a decefe defence, prepare a strong WS and later be prepared to defend my self in court and look good at judge eyes.

Thanks again

Gr1pr

Which legal company are UKPPO using   ?  Is it still  B W Legal   ?

Post a redacted picture of the POC on the lower left of the claim form after hiding the VRM details first 

KeithP

Redkite22 said:

-Received the HM Court & Tribunal Service letter issue date 14/02/2025
-Filed AOS through MCOL on the 26/02/2025
-Until 19/03/2025 (28 days after date of service(5 days after issue date)) to file a Defence.

With a Claim Issue Date of 14th February, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, as you say, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 19th March 2025 to file a Defence.

That's a little over a week 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 AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Redkite22

Gr1pr said:

Which legal company are UKPPO using   ?  Is it still  B W Legal   ?

Post a redacted picture of the POC on the lower left of the claim form after hiding the VRM details first 

Thanks a lot for your answer! 

They started with Debt Recovery Plus and later BW Legal with last letter informin of court letter being from BW Legal.

The POC is only "mentioned" in the first 2 letters I received from UKPPO

Redkite22

KeithP said:

Redkite22 said:

-Received the HM Court & Tribunal Service letter issue date 14/02/2025
-Filed AOS through MCOL on the 26/02/2025
-Until 19/03/2025 (28 days after date of service(5 days after issue date)) to file a Defence.

With a Claim Issue Date of 14th February, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, as you say, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 19th March 2025 to file a Defence.

That's a little over a week 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 AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Thanks a lot KeithP

I've already started to file my Defence using that template and I would really appreciate if someone would be able to tell me if the Paragraph 2 and 3 are strong enough and containing nor too little or too much information before sending it.

Gr1pr

Its a redacted picture of the POC on the CLAIM FORM that I asked for 

The name of the lawyers is below the claimant details on the top left of the CLAIM FORM  !

Redkite22

Gr1pr said:

Its a redacted picture of the POC on the CLAIM FORM that I asked for 

The name of the lawyers is below the claimant details on the top left of the CLAIM FORM  !

Oh I see now! 

Coupon-mad

You're doing great, especially for a non-native English speaker! Stay strong and confident. This claim isn't likely to impress a Judge.

I saw a typo. This:

"Thought the car park app the Defendant discovered"

should read

Through the car park app the Defendant discovered

Redkite22

Coupon-mad said:

You're doing great, especially for a non-native English speaker! Stay strong and confident. This claim isn't likely to impress a Judge.

I saw a typo. This:

"Thought the car park app the Defendant discovered"

should read

Through the car park app the Defendant discovered

Thanks a lot! I did't notice that obvious mistake.

Considering my story shoul I add more or take off somenting from the defence?

Redkite22

Coupon-mad said:

You're doing great, especially for a non-native English speaker! Stay strong and confident. This claim isn't likely to impress a Judge.

I saw a typo. This:

"Thought the car park app the Defendant discovered"

should read

Through the car park app the Defendant discovered

Also do you think there is any chance of a win in court considering the signs at the parking space are in a rubbish position, non adequate light and there was no mention of a maximum grace period and charges that wouls've apllied?

Coupon-mad

We win 99% of the time so it is almost certain you'll win. Your defence is fine and poor signage IS a major consideration for any Judge.