Six year old ticket

Coupon-mad wrote: »

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM NO. XXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LIMITED

Claimant

and

XXXXX XXXXXXX

Defendant

[STRIKE]Statement of[/STRIKE]

DEFENCE

1. This claim purports to relate to a parking charge relating to an identified vehicle in 2012. As the registered keeper of that vehicle, the Defendant has no knowledge of any 'parking charges' and received no correspondence at all until this sudden claim. The Defendant has no idea of the circumstances or contravention alleged, and the Claimant has given no explanation for the lack of previous correspondence, nor has the Claimant supplied photographic or other evidence.

1.1. The Particulars of Claim [STRIKE]do not[/STRIKE] fail to disclose any reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and as such, are an abuse of the court process or otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings. The particulars fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction 16 by failing to provide a copy of the contract or details of any agreement by conduct. [STRIKE]The particulars also fail to describe how the amount claimed has been calculated.[/STRIKE]

1.2. The alleged incident pre-dates the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4), before which there was no lawful route to hold a registered keeper liable for the actions of an unidentified driver.

1.3. The Claimant has failed to produce any evidence regarding the identity of the driver, and there can be no lawful presumption that a keeper was the driver on any given date in the absence of evidence.

1.4. The Claimant is known to seek to rely on the case of Elliott v Loake [1983] Crim LR 36, in order to mislead the court that this case created a purported precedent that amounts to a presumption that the registered keeper is the driver. In that case, the finding that the keeper was the driver was based on the provision of forensic and other evidence, none of which has been presented here. Elliot v Loake was also a criminal case, which has no bearing on a civil contractual matter, as decided in several county court decisions where the Judges dismissed Elliott v Loake as not applicable.

2. The particulars fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction 16, paragraphs 7.3 and 7.5, by failing to provide a copy of the alleged contract (presumably, signage terms from 2012). [STRIKE]or details of any agreement by conduct[/STRIKE]

3. Practice direction 22 sets out who may sign a statement of truth. Para 3.10 states that ''A legal representative who signs a statement of truth must sign in his own name and not that of his firm or employer''. The claim is signed by ''BW Legal''.

4. The Claimant's solicitor, BW Legal, is a notorious, serial 'robo-claim' firm, whose cosy relationship with various rogue parking companies, and unacceptable conduct in pursuing unjustified and inflated parking charges was recently 'named and shamed' in a Parliamentary Second Reading of the Private Parking Code of Practice Bill, where one MP revealed he had reported this firm to the Solicitors' Regulation Authority to investigate. The Claimants themselves have also been named and shamed by MPs on several occasions, regarding their predatory and aggressive business practices, woeful signage and lack of evidence of any agreed contract.

4.1. The issuing of this baseless claim appears to be an attempt to intimidate the Defendant into paying an ancient and unsubstantiated 'charge' for which the Defendant is not legally liable. This shows a complete lack of respect for the court process and also demonstrates the failure of the Claimant to attempt to mitigate losses, by making an extortionate, unquantified and unjustified demand for £262.50.

5. The claimant may seek to rely on the case of Parking Eye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('Beavis'). This claim can be easily distinguished from Beavis, which was dependent upon an un-denied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the unusually compelling legitimate interests of the landowner (at that location only) in encouraging a turnover of free parking spaces. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice was paramount, and Mr. Beavis was the admitted driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85. None of this is applicable to this case, and the Supreme Court was at pains to state that each parking charge case would necessitate individual consideration of the facts, and that the penalty rule was certainly engaged in such cases.

5.1. Further, in Beavis at the Court of Appeal stage, the Judges held the case of a free licence to park under certain conditions, was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic transactional disputes. Parking charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers and this claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found were still a relevant and adequate test in less complex cases.

6. As a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) in 2012, this Claimant was banned by the DVLA for several months for 'a significant breach' of the Code of Practice.

6.1. This ban was reported by the DVLA in a Freedom of Information reply in the public domain, as relating to unacceptable and misleading wording on their signs, which attempted to suggest a registered keeper could be liable, before the POFA was enacted. Implying that a keeper could be liable/responsible for the actions of a driver was identified by the DVLA as so serious a matter that Excel was banned from obtaining registered keeper data for three months.

6.2. It is averred that this misinformation regarding liability is exactly what this Claimant is repeating now, in the hope that neither the Defendant nor the Courts will realise that there can have been no 'keeper liability' on the material date and that this Claimant was actually banned for making these same misleading statements, around the time of this alleged incident.

7. No evidence has been supplied to demonstrate that the Claimant is/was the landowner of the land in question, or that they have/had any other right, standing or proprietary interest in the land on the material date. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that they were at the time of the alleged event in possession of sufficient authority to issue parking charges and issue enforcement proceedings in their own name and can demonstrate a clear chain of authority from the landowner.

8. It is averred that this Claimant failed to make reasonable efforts to make the terms and conditions in any of its car parks clear and prominent then, or at all. It cannot be assumed that anyone entering the car park in 2012 - when Excel used particularly crowded and illegible wording on all their signage - was aware of or agreed to any 'parking charge' terms. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the driver (an unidentified party) saw, read and agreed to a contract upon which the claimant is relying.

8.1. The court's attention is drawn to the words of Simon Renshaw-Smith (previously known as 'Captain Clampit') in Excel v Cutts (2011, Stockport County Court), where Excel's signage was held to be deliberately misleading and deceptive, hiding any 'contractual charge' in the smallest lettering.

8.2. The unclear signage used universally by Excel in 2011/2012 was exposed in an article by the Plain Language Commission, which reported that Mr Renshaw-Smith wrote to Stockport MP Andrew Gwynne: ''The recent decision by Deputy District Judge Lateef, is an embarrassment to the judicial system. Such an off the wall judgment leads one to question if there was indeed an ulterior motive. DJ Lateef is not fit to serve the Civil Courts''. It is averred that this Claimant continues to demonstrate a complete lack of respect for the court process, and a disregard for the rights of registered keepers in 2018. What is plain, is that the repeated exposure in Parliamentary debates condemning this Claimant and their solicitor is wholly justified.

9. The Claimant is attempting to claim additional charges such as legal costs of £129.00. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. The additional sum claimed for interest is an insult to justice and evidence of the Claimant's wilful and vexatious abuse of the court process, given that this Claimant has waited almost six years to contact the Defendant.

10. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed. In the absence of strict proof capable of rebutting the above points of defence, I submit that the Claimant has no cause of action whatsoever against the Defendant registered keeper, and the Defendant invites the court to exercise its case management powers to strike the claim out without a hearing, since it has no prospects of success.


I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.


signed



date

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes of course, I wrote it for you use.

Add your claim number and your name where shown at the top, remove the bits I crossed out, change it all to black (not red), print it out and sign/date it. Keep a copy for your own court file.

email a scan of the signed/dated document to the ccbcaq email address, as explained by KeithP above.

Job done, for now...bear in mind there are other paperwork stages to follow. You will win. Keep coming back here at each stage, don't assume a court letter needs no action.