Unpaid parking - 50p

Hedgehog1948 · 13 December 2018 at 11:34AM

Excel Parking Services have started proceeding against me in the County Court and I have sent an Acknowledge of Service to the court. This gives me until 30th December to file a defence. The user of the car at the time failed to pay a 50p parking fee and Excel has sent the usual PCN to myself as the keeper of the vehicle.

I went through the IAS appeals process but my appeal was rejected as expected. I have read the Newbies thread.

I have prepared a defence based on the fact that the 'relevant land ' was not correctly specified on the PCN: wrong carpark name, no street, wrong post code. The use of a postcode at all is wrong according to the Royal Mail for an unoccupied building with no post box.

I have included some text from previous defence examples to cover signs and the sums of money being claimed.

The examples of defence given on the forum do not include evidence. I was proposing to add attachments to the defence text as evidence. Is that correct?

What should I do next before filing the defence?

I would appreciate any guidance.

Guys_Dad · 13 December 2018 at 12:04PM

Hedgehog1948 wrote: »

The use of a postcode at all is wrong according to the Royal Mail for an unoccupied building with no post box.
.

Are you referring here to where the car was parked or the PPC address?

I have to say that it is news to me that a building that becomes unoccupied loses its post code! I can understand the Post Office not being able to deliver mail to an unoccupied building with no letter box. but..............................

Umkomaas · 13 December 2018 at 12:06PM

Please read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2 which describes in detail, written by legally qualified people, how the entire court process should be handled by you.

Evidence comes later in the process, not at defence stage.

KeithP · 13 December 2018 at 3:25PM

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Hedgehog1948 · 14 December 2018 at 11:25AM

The postcode I am referring to is for the car park. The car park has not become unoccupied and has not lost its postcode. It is currently not allocated with a postcode because it is unoccupied and has no letter box. I used the Royal Mail tool to try and find a postcode for the car park but the tool produced no result. Subsequent email correspondence with the Royal Mail resulted in cofirmation of this point.

Hedgehog1948 · 14 December 2018 at 11:28AM

Issue date on claim form is 27th November 2018.

The_Deep · 14 December 2018 at 1:06PM

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

KeithP · 14 December 2018 at 2:30PM

Hedgehog1948 wrote: »

Issue date on claim form is 27th November 2018.

With a Claim Issue Date of 27th November, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 31st December 2018 to file your Defence.

That's over two weeks away. Loads of time to produce a good Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.

When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Sign it and date it.
Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Hedgehog1948 · 18 December 2018 at 11:26AM

Here is my defence. Any comments would be welcome and in particular have I made best use the point in para 6?

Claim No:

Claimant:

Defendant

PCN Reference Number

Background

The Defendant, as keeper of the vehicle, accepts that the vehicle was parked at (actual name of car park here not the location that is on the NTK) at the times and date described in the Notice to Keeper (NTK).

The Defendant accepts that the 50 pence consistent with the tarriff for the parking period was not paid.
Neither the Defendant or any driver of the vehicle has previously or subsequently failed to pay the appropriate parking fee at this car park.

The Defendant denies that:

a. a contract was formed to pay anything more than the advertised tariff;
b. there was any agreement to pay a further penalty parking charge;
c. there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site which prominently displayed the £100 penalty, in at least as large lettering as the tariffs shown at the machine;
d. in addition to the parking charge, that there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums;
e. the Claimant in fact expended the claimed additional sums;
f. the Claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Accredited Operator Code of Practice.

Defence

The Claimant had intended to complete a NTK in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4. It is a strict and necessary requirement of the act that the notice must specify 'the relevant land ' on which the vehicle was parked (Paragraph 9 (2), (a)). This section has been completed incorrectly and does not define the relevant land on which the vehicle was parked. Therefore the NTK is invalid.
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The information provided by the Claimant does locate a site but this only confuses the issue by locating a position about 1km away from the actual car park and thereby failing to specify the relevant land. Therefore the NTK is invalid.[/FONT]
In Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 –EGLR -154, it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach.

The Defendant has made reasonable endeavours to comply with the contractual terms and pay an appropriate charge, consistent with the length of stay, by contacting the Claimant in a timely manner and offering to make a payment. The offer was not accepted by the Claimant or even acknowledged. The Defendant should not therefore be penalised for the breach.
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper (NTK), which is in this case £100. The Claimant is claiming £160 without basis and the additional sum of £60 on top of the £100 appears to be a disingenuous attempt at double recovery.
The signage is inadequate and fails to comply with the International Parking Community Accredited Operator Code of Practice. In particular the details of any penalty charge is reduced to a footnote on the main sign next to the payment meter, in the smallest text on the sign, with the penalty charge itself about 5 times smaller than the tariff on the same sign.
The Claimant has provided a photo dated 22 May 2017 that shows a sign at the entrance to the car park saying ' This car park will be operating free of charge from 2 January 2015'. This sign is clearly visible to and readable by any driver entering the car park. This contrasts to the adjacent sign that states the parking charge in much smaller text and would be unreadable from the car. Thus the date of the alleged offence falls within the free parking period and no fee was payable.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Name

Signature

Date

nosferatu1001 · 18 December 2018 at 11:55AM

Is there a reason you are not hitting them with POFA failure?

Wrong location on the NtK means they have not identified the relevant land.

twhitehousescat · 18 December 2018 at 12:02PM

have you checked who landowner is , and if rates are being paid on this land

the land is not unoccupied , its a running business

Unpaid parking - 50p

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free