Euro Car Parks - Claim Form - Scottish Resident - 2022 event - Concourse Shopping Centre

Gr1pr

ECP are BPA AOS members, not IPC

You are only drafting paragraph 3, so condense it and only use number 3, not numbers 1 to 5

You will be using the other 9 paragraphs in the defence template

Straitgate

Doubledotcom

The claim was likely issued to the English address because I am currently staying here to care for my father with dementia. I don't know how they discovered I live here now... I didn't even transfer my mail details...However, the vehicle was definitely registered in Scotland at the time of the event. Thanks for the heads up on the DCB Legal discontinuations. I feel relieved to know that they're messing things up.

Straitgate

Gr1pr

Thanks... is this better? I've corrected the reference to BPA (not IPC). I've condensed the specific facts (Scotland residency/PoFA and the signage overhaul) into the one Paragraph No. 3 and should I use the standard Template for the rest without any changes?

3. The facts as known to the Defendant:

It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle. At the material time (August 2022), the Defendant was a permanent resident of and domiciled in Scotland (Isle of Skye). Consequently, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Schedule 4 does not apply, and there is no "Keeper Liability"; the Claimant is put to strict proof of the driver's identity, which is not admitted. Furthermore, the signage at the Concourse Shopping Centre has since been entirely overhauled. In 2022, the signage was sparse, lacked the prominence required by the BPA Code of Practice, and entrance points (specifically near the McDonald's area) were devoid of clear contractual terms. Generic "CCTV" signs were present which implied security monitoring rather than a parking contract.

Gr1pr

I did warn you earlier to remove all of the air quotes, " " , not allowed on MCOL, probably caused your previous problems

You also need to refute the POC and put them to strict proof, even if you add an extra short concise paragraph as a new paragraph 4 and then renumber the rest from 5 to 11. ( instead of 10 paragraphs. )

Once approved, you copy and paste all 11 paragraphs into the MCOL defence box and check that it fits then save it, then submit ( not email., not post , not recommended, too close to the deadline. . )

If it doesn't fit, remove the last paragraph, rinse and repeat

Straitgate

GR1PR

Thank you again for keeping me right. This is a re-draft. There are 12 paragraphs... But when I pasted them into this comment window the numbers disappeared. But anyway I can put them in I presume in MCOL. Can you tell me GR1PR... Is this ready to send?

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 Defendant was in breach of any term or condition and it is denied that any sum was due.

The Defendant was at the material time a permanent resident of and domiciled in Scotland. Consequently the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 does not apply and there is no Keeper Liability. The Claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of the Act to transfer liability to the Keeper. The Defendant has no recollection of the event three years prior and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the driver identity which is not admitted.

The signage at the Concourse Shopping Centre has since been entirely overhauled. At the material time, signage was inadequate, lacked prominence, and failed to meet the BPA Code of Practice. The entrance points were devoid of clear contractual terms. Generic CCTV signs were present which implied security monitoring rather than a parking contract.

The Particulars of Claim are sparse and fail to comply with CPR 16.4. The Claimant has failed to specify the arrival and departure times or the exact location within the site. The Claimant is put to strict proof of every element of their claim and is required to provide a contemporaneous site plan and dated photographs of the signage as it existed in August 2022.

The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices and to pursue such charges in its own name.

The amount claimed includes a sum of 70 pounds for debt collection fees. This is a transparent attempt at double recovery and is an abuse of process. Such costs are already included in the Claimant overheads and cannot be added to the claim.

The Claimant has not provided a breakdown of the additional 70 pounds. The Defendant refers the court to the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis where the Supreme Court held that the parking charge itself is intended to cover the costs of enforcement.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent. The Claimant is required to produce a full copy of the contract with the landowner that specifically authorises the issuance of court claims in their own name.

The Claimant is also put to strict proof of the ANPR data accuracy. ANPR systems are not infallible and the Claimant must provide maintenance records for the cameras at the material time.

The Claimant has delayed this claim for over three years. This delay is highly prejudicial to the Defendant as it makes retrieving evidence and specific memories of the day impossible. The court is invited to strike out the claim for this delay alone.

If the court is not minded to strike out the claim, the Defendant requests that the case be transferred to the Defendant local court in Scotland or the court nearest to where the Defendant is currently residing in England.

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true. The Defendant understands that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Gr1pr

Apart from the air quotes, I liked your paragraph 3 earlier so was expecting a new concise paragraph 4

The rest of your draft above doesn't resemble the other 9 paragraphs in the template defence , i just checked

I suggest that you edit the earlier paragraph 3 you drafted, add a concise paragraph 4 and only copy those 2 paragraphs below for approval

Straitgate

GR1PR

I'm sorry... Is this all that we should add?

3. The facts as known to the Defendant:

The Defendant was at the material time a permanent resident of and domiciled in Scotland. Consequently the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 does not apply and there is no Keeper Liability. The Claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of the Act to transfer liability to the Keeper. The Defendant has no recollection of the event three years prior and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the driver identity which is not admitted. The signage at the Concourse Shopping Centre has since been entirely overhauled. In 2022 the signage was sparse and lacked the prominence required by the BPA Code of Practice and entrance points were devoid of clear contractual terms. Generic CCTV signs were present which implied security monitoring rather than a parking contract.

4. Failure to comply with CPR 16.4:

The Particulars of Claim are sparse and fail to comply with CPR 16.4. The Claimant has failed to specify the arrival and departure times or the exact location within the site. The Claimant is put to strict proof of every element of their claim and is required to provide a contemporaneous site plan and dated photographs of the signage as it existed in August 2022.

kryten3000

You can correct your address to the Scottish one, contest jurisdiction and then DCB Legal will likely discontinue.

Straitgate

Thanks Kryten3000.

I considered contesting jurisdiction, but since I've already filed my AOS and I'm currently staying in England for caregiving, I'm worried it might complicate things. I'm going to stick with the 'No Keeper Liability' defence as a Scottish resident at the material time. It seems more straightforward for my situation. But thanks all the same Kryten.

Gr1pr

Agreed, as the AOS has already been done with a Monday deadline to meet, stick to the template defence and the current address for the service of papers IMHO, the English aspect

Your new paragraphs 3 & 4 look OK to me but wait for further comments over the next day or two, in case they need improvement or editing etc