Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • SophiaS
    • By SophiaS 4th Jan 18, 8:26 PM
    • 4Posts
    • 3Thanks
    SophiaS
    Pcn small claim but no defence
    • #1
    • 4th Jan 18, 8:26 PM
    Pcn small claim but no defence 4th Jan 18 at 8:26 PM
    Am I doomed? Have I been stupid for ignoring private parking ticket demand letters? There is a claim form (with particulars of claim listed) sitting on my kitchen table from CCBC (BW Legal for Vehicle Control Services LTD).

    Let me start by saying I'm a newbie, I joined the forum today. I've read the NEWBIES PRIVATE PARKING TICKET thread and instructions have been followed on filling out and completing a MCOL - which has now been submitted - but now I'm well and truly stuck.

    I'm not a legal eagle, I'm barely managing the abbreviations in the threads I've read and I really don't know how to proceed.

    I understand that some kind of defence needs to be put together but what if there really isnt one? Ignorance is no defence is it?

    Here are the particulars. If anyone knows of a way to successfully defend the Small Claim it will be welcomed with open arms.

    [*]Driver "overstayed" in a two hour free parking space at a retail shopping centre in Sheffield. Many retail and food outlets - one large carpark - no clue that there was a time limit in operation. Had never seen this before in this carpark.
    [*]This happened in October 2015. Notice via letter in post.
    [*]Can barely remember the details but car was over by 15 to 30 mins.
    [*]Countless letters were received from Vehicle Control Services all of which were ignored following what now seems really bad advice.
    [*]Letters (and calls) from BW Legal services commenced (and ignored). All letters were originally kept for ages, but then discarded.

    Claim form with Issue date 3rd Jan 18 received today and AOS on MCOL filled & completed. CCBC in Northampton.

    Without the letters or even the clear memory of the parking infraction, how can the driver defend or minimise this claim? Driver should have been more vigilant on signs in or around the car park but wasn't. It was an honest oversight.

    If anyone has any idea how to begin to draft a defence i would be more than grateful.
    Last edited by SophiaS; 04-01-2018 at 9:16 PM.
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 4th Jan 18, 8:30 PM
    • 18,367 Posts
    • 23,271 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 4th Jan 18, 8:30 PM
    • #2
    • 4th Jan 18, 8:30 PM
    I hope you have NOT filled out an MCOL

    you are only required to do the AOS online and then you have 28 days from the date of service to complete your defence

    this is submitted in response to the MCOL, which we assume you received from Northampton CCBC, not from VCS and not from BW LEGAL either

    the CCBC issues the MCOL on their behalf

    if you have only done the AOS and nothing else, then read a dozen or more court claim defences posted on here over the last 6 months , especially those linked in the NEWBIES sticky thread post #2

    then draft your own based on those other examples, post the draft on here for critique and feedback

    ps:- do not beat yourself up about ignoring their letters, it would still be at this stage even if you had replied , so IGNORING THEM was one strategy and nothing wrong with doing so in which case you have done nothing wrong

    edit your previous post and remove any hint of who was driving, its a secret and there are millions of people here in the UK that can drive that vehicle, you are the KEEPER of that vehicle as the V5C has your details on it (I ASSUME)
    Last edited by Redx; 04-01-2018 at 8:36 PM.
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • waamo
    • By waamo 4th Jan 18, 8:32 PM
    • 3,411 Posts
    • 4,553 Thanks
    waamo
    • #3
    • 4th Jan 18, 8:32 PM
    • #3
    • 4th Jan 18, 8:32 PM
    There is no such thing as a registered driver. Does the claim mention POFA?
    This space for hire.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 4th Jan 18, 8:37 PM
    • 7,720 Posts
    • 7,466 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #4
    • 4th Jan 18, 8:37 PM
    • #4
    • 4th Jan 18, 8:37 PM
    Hi SophiaS. Welcome.

    The first thing you need to do is edit your post to remove all clues to the driver's identity.

    You are the keeper of the car.

    It is important that you do not say who the driver is.

    For example, your second bullet point should perhaps start:
    The driver "overstayed" in a two hour free parking space...
    Please review and adjust the rest of your post accordingly.
    .
    • fisherjim
    • By fisherjim 4th Jan 18, 8:40 PM
    • 3,022 Posts
    • 4,603 Thanks
    fisherjim
    • #5
    • 4th Jan 18, 8:40 PM
    • #5
    • 4th Jan 18, 8:40 PM
    "County court is in Northampton"

    No it isn't that's just the clearing centre you appoint your court of preference.
    • SophiaS
    • By SophiaS 4th Jan 18, 8:43 PM
    • 4 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    SophiaS
    • #6
    • 4th Jan 18, 8:43 PM
    • #6
    • 4th Jan 18, 8:43 PM
    Hi Redx. You are right....its just the Acknowledgement part. And yes the form was from Northampton CCBC with VCS as the claimant and BW Legal - their representative I'm guessing.

    If Newbies sticky thread post 2 is where the guide to filling out the AOS is then i have read the various defences people have used. All had strong legitimate defences.....none seemed to be similar, eg over stayed in a 2 hour free car park and proceeded to ignore demand letters.

    I cant even prove if VCS didnt follow procedures as I've cleared out all letters i kept, so all dates of letters etc are no longer at hand. I am distraught and its all my fault.

    Original fine was either 75 or 100.

    I now have to pay 245.42

    I should have paid the original fine and not ignored the letters.

    Its sods law
    • Redx
    • By Redx 4th Jan 18, 8:44 PM
    • 18,367 Posts
    • 23,271 Thanks
    Redx
    • #7
    • 4th Jan 18, 8:44 PM
    • #7
    • 4th Jan 18, 8:44 PM
    Claim form with Issue date 3rd Jan 18 received today and MCOL filled & completed.

    County court is in Northampton.
    Originally posted by SophiaS
    no it is not

    that is the government civil service office where these claims are issued from , not a court at all, its just a business centre , hence the BC in CCBC

    think of it as being like the DVLA in swansea, or the pension centre up in or near gateshead - they have to have these offices somewhere in the country , so for court claims they have 2 admin centres , one in Northampton and one in Salford

    your nearest court is where this will be sent later down the track
    Last edited by Redx; 06-06-2018 at 5:22 PM.
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 4th Jan 18, 8:47 PM
    • 35,912 Posts
    • 20,185 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #8
    • 4th Jan 18, 8:47 PM
    • #8
    • 4th Jan 18, 8:47 PM
    You shouldn't be ignoring #4


    The ppcs monitor here and can use your posts against you!
    • Redx
    • By Redx 4th Jan 18, 8:48 PM
    • 18,367 Posts
    • 23,271 Thanks
    Redx
    • #9
    • 4th Jan 18, 8:48 PM
    • #9
    • 4th Jan 18, 8:48 PM
    still needs more editing in post #1

    THE DRIVER was over

    THE DRIVER should have been more vigilant

    etc


    what happened on the day happened to the DRIVER

    what has happened SINCE that day has happened to the KEEPER

    only refer to THE DRIVER and THE KEEPER, no "ME , MYSELF & I"
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • SophiaS
    • By SophiaS 4th Jan 18, 9:27 PM
    • 4 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    SophiaS
    Ok....so i will take this opportunity to thank you guys for taking the time to point out typo's/post etiquette/location of CCBC or not etc ......rather than some solid pointers of what the DRIVER or the KEEPER could even begin to write as a defence for a percieved parking infraction that OP doesn't feel entirely resembles the experience/defence of other DRIVERS in other threads.

    Will keep searching for answers.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 4th Jan 18, 9:39 PM
    • 7,720 Posts
    • 7,466 Thanks
    KeithP
    Posting etiquette??
    I have no interest in that.

    Only yesterday on another thread I posted this:
    Just before Christmas I received a PM from a poster showing me that a PoPLA appeal had been lost simply because the operator was able to show that the keeper appellant was actually the driver. They did this by using screen prints from this very forum.
    Good luck with whatever you decide to do.
    .
    • Redx
    • By Redx 4th Jan 18, 9:41 PM
    • 18,367 Posts
    • 23,271 Thanks
    Redx
    most other threads are KEEPER defences , not DRIVER defences and at this stage this has nothing to do with THE DRIVER , only the KEEPER , which is you as RK

    when you said you filled in the MCOL, I believe you mean you have done the AOS only, and not filled in the defence part of the MCOL , because if you filled in the defence part you cannot amend it later without paying a large fee

    so AOS only , nothing else

    so now you have edited post #1 so that the PPC and BW LEGAL now have no idea who was driving , keep it that way, because they will have failed POFA2012, so that is one of your defence points

    poor and inadequate signage is another point

    no landowner contract willl be another point

    grace periods may be another point , like waiting for a space , parking up , read the signs etc , plus a grace period of over 10 minutes at the end to leave the car park, assuming there wasnt congestion at the exit ? (I am sure there was )

    ie@- at this stage you dont see their evidence , so you use a defence that questions everything and accepts nothing , and a defence from a KEEPER `s perspective

    lamilad beat Excel (their sister company) on several occasions based on no keeper liability , so look at his posts and threads for a start

    and post #2 of that newbies sticky thread has several examples of suitable defences you can adapt

    until you post a draft defence , nobody will second guess it for you

    we are helping you by getting post #1 into the correct format for a public forum, so although you do not believe we have helped you, we have because you have been educated into knowing that the keeper and the driver are 2 separate entities, where the drivers details are kept secret because BW LEGAL and VCS etc read public forums and can take screenshots

    ps:- if you cannot take the criticisms for what they are at this stage , heaven help you when you start with your defence and witness statement drafts etc, because critique from here is how you will hone your dealings with the solicitors and court in this matter
    Last edited by Redx; 18-01-2018 at 7:48 PM.
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • waamo
    • By waamo 4th Jan 18, 9:55 PM
    • 3,411 Posts
    • 4,553 Thanks
    waamo
    Ok....so i will take this opportunity to thank you guys for taking the time to point out typo's/post etiquette/location of CCBC or not etc ......rather than some solid pointers of what the DRIVER or the KEEPER could even begin to write as a defence for a percieved parking infraction that OP doesn't feel entirely resembles the experience/defence of other DRIVERS in other threads.

    Will keep searching for answers.
    Originally posted by SophiaS
    You are missing the point of those answers entirely. Many posters drop themselves in deep do do by saying on a forum they were driving or keeping a vehicle

    You are doing exactly that. Your posts are littered with things that can be used against you. People are trying to help not criticise for the sake of it.
    This space for hire.
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 4th Jan 18, 10:03 PM
    • 577 Posts
    • 680 Thanks
    claxtome
    Edit - This post explains one defensive argument "grace periods". Redx went into more detail in post #12 about other arguments.

    An overstay of around 20 minutes can be explained in terms of "grace periods".

    Read up on them within the International Parking Community (IPC) Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) Code or Practice that the Private Parking Company (PPC) Vehicle Control Services (VCS) adhered to. Google it and download it as it is the rules that they must adhere to.

    You now need to look up as many threads as you can using advance search for posts containing terms like "VCS" "grace periods" and cut and paste the defence arguments relevant from those threads to construct your own defence.
    (Newbies sticky post 2 gives this info)

    When ready post it in this thread.

    Other people might help as to how to get more info from VCS maybe utilising the Pre-Action Protocol.
    Does the claim form indicate how long the driver overstayed?
    Last edited by claxtome; 04-01-2018 at 11:01 PM.
    • SophiaS
    • By SophiaS 4th Jan 18, 10:42 PM
    • 4 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    SophiaS
    So I apologise to the ones trying to help with post pointers.
    Being a newbie (and that means new to any forum ever), i had no idea that certain people would scour and screen grab forum posts to be used as evidence. (Being a newbie i don't really know what sticky post means unless its yellow and square).
    Also, I had no idea identification information could even be gleaned from a posters profile, there is no email address, full address, full name or anything of the sort listed.....so im still not sure how two and two are put together but anyhoo...

    The reason for the post was because i read one thread about defences that will not fly in front of a judge....one of these being "a defendant cannot say they didn't see/didn't know there were signs/parking enforcements in place e.g one cannot use ignorance as defence regardless if its true.

    Another was "you cant say the charge is disproportionate or unfair" or similar ilk.There were many other defences one cannot use successfully....which shot down a lot of hope and prompted the original post. It was a nowhere to turn moment - hence no perceived defence.

    And now with all original demand letters and the like being used to line a litter tray....there is nothing but hazy recollection of events from 2.5 years ago. No hard facts to defend against e.g entry and exit time of said car park.....
    Just a nightmare really.
    Will take heed of above posts and read up more though and try to scratch together a draft defence.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 4th Jan 18, 10:56 PM
    • 18,367 Posts
    • 23,271 Thanks
    Redx
    BW LEGAL and VCS only have to look at the date of the MCOL and the location that you have mentioned plus the date it happened (oct 2015) to be able to narrow down your identity , the more info you give on a public forum the easier it is to identify you (especially if you were named Sophia Smith or something similar)

    it is not hard for these people to identify people from information in their posts , we are trying to protect you because we recognise you are a newbie making all the rookie mistakes

    you will get to see their evidence and all that paperwork later, assuming you do not ask for it in the meantime

    we want you to draft a defence based upon legal arguments that are the ones used in most keeper defences , not necessarily about what happened on the day in question

    a one size fits all defence for now, which may mention not having the old paperwork included with the MCOL, that may mention that time has dimmed the recollections of that day , or subsequent paperwork

    maybe the new 01 oct 2017 protocols demand that you should have received photos and copies of all paperwork etc ?

    for now concentrate on producing a draft defence that can be honed over the next 4 weeks , with constructive criticism as the feedback you need to hone it

    nobody here will do it for you or guess what your defence should be , they will wait to see it and then make comments , that is how it works (we know you are not legally trained and find it daunting , its the same for every court case thread on here)

    you may not have heard of BARRY BEAVIS , despite all the publicity over the last few years (google him) but the SUPREME COURT case 2 years ago put paid to the arguments about it being an excessive charge etc (disproportionate and unfair)

    6 out of 7 judges ruled against him as regards the charge being too much (unconcionable) , so you have no chance arguing that point because the SC decision is binding on lower courts

    but LORD DENNINGS red hand rule on signage would seem to be in your favour , seeing as the driver was not made aware of any changes so the signs must have been poor and inadequate. the driver should have seen signs that could not be missed , they didnt , so the signs failed that RED HAND RULE

    VCS have likely failed POFA2012 on timescales and wording so as KEEPER you are not liable if they have failed to transfer the liability using POFA2012 to do so - that is your main defence point (one of many)

    the sticky threads at the top of this forum are the VDU equivalent of the yellow post-it in the old analogue days of writing on paper and sticking it to the top of the list on the front page

    to start you off, I used the drop down search box and found this recent overstay ongoing court case

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5738427

    it is a different parking company and an MSA and not a retail park like yours , so has stuff in it that isnt relevant in your case

    but it does contain many relevant points and should give you a heads up on what you should be doing and typing (or copying and pasting)

    perhaps copying it and then removing all the bits that are not relevant , and editing it to show the correct details for the PPC , the solicitors , the location etc should mean you have a recent draft that can be fine tuned over the next few weeks ?

    and the NEWBIES sticky thread post #2 has a VCS one linked that you could look at to see if anything can be used ?
    Last edited by Redx; 04-01-2018 at 11:49 PM.
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Jan 18, 11:43 PM
    • 58,549 Posts
    • 72,051 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You are likely to win, just copy a similar one. Search 'defence POFA 2012' and see what you find from 2017.

    This happened in October 2015. Notice via letter in post.
    Probably not received by day 15, and certainly not worded to hold a keeper liable.

    Ergo, you the registered keeper, are not liable.

    As an aside, please contact WHICH? magazine using the easy link from this thread to tell them briefly of your plight. The more people who contact WHICH, the more likely they are to take up this unregulated scam industry as their next cause:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5765579
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 05-01-2018 at 11:32 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • SophS
    • By SophS 17th Jan 18, 7:33 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 37 Thanks
    SophS
    Draft Defence (same OP)
    Hi, Again.....I'm the original poster of this thread, I no longer " have the authorisation" to reply in the same thread (no idea why) nor can I do a search or advanced search, therefore, I've had to create a new account just to post this for feedback hopefully.

    I must apologise that this is a long post because it also contains the draft defence.
    I can no longer be an ostrich...the date for submitting a defence is looming. The date of acknowledgement of service was 5th Jan so I'm guessing 28 days after that is DDay? does this include sat & sun?

    Quick disclaimers:

    My head is swimming - I don't understand any of the legal jargon if I'm honest. Hence I have probably repeated the same defence point over and over with my search and subsequent cut and paste of various (previous) defences used by others.

    I have put the word OR between some paragraphs because some have an alternative and I don't know which is the more suitable to use. So one can be deleted.

    I don't know if I have numbered the paragraphs properly or excessively.

    I have searched for the "Grace time" defence against VCS and can't find one - would like some pointers if any are at hand.

    Not sure if paragraph 2 and 4 (of which are two alternatives in 4) are saying the same thing, just in a different way.

    Not sure if par 4.2.1 - 4.2.4 are just excessive details.

    Par 8 is the POFA defence (probably unknowingly repeated)

    Par 10,11, 12 is signage defence - again probably overdone it.

    Despite all the claims made in the all the defence arguments - non are a certainty because all letters save the two most recent from BW (notice of impending count court claim & notice of county court claim issued) were kept.

    Any feedback would be gratefully appreciated.



    In the County Court Business Centre

    Claim Number: XXXXX

    Between:

    Vehicle Control Services Ltd (Claimant)

    -and-

    XXXXX (Defendant)


    DEFENCE STATEMENT



    I, XXXXX, deny I am liable to the Claimant for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

    The Claim Form issued on XXXXX by BW Legal was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by !!!8220;BW Legal!!!8221;.

    2) This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017). As an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.

    3) There was no compliant !!!8216;Letter before County Court Claim!!!8217;, under the Practice Direction.


    4) The Particulars of Claim (PoC) is sparse of detailed information.

    4.1) The Claim Form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.
    The Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. These documents, and the !!!8216;Letter before County Court Claim!!!8217; should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction !!!8211; Pre Action Conduct.

    OR

    4.1) The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer).

    4.2) The PoC do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states !!!8220;parking charges!!!8221; which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract', so I have had to cover all eventualities and this has denied me a fair chance to defend this in an informed way.

    This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to !!!8220;take stock!!!8221;, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction. Again, this contradicts the guidance outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), the aims of which are:

    4.2.1) !!!8216;early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute
    4.2.2) enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure
    4.2.3) encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue) and
    4.2.4) support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided.!!!8217;

    5) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information. Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as disclosing no cause of action and having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

    OR

    The Claimant!!!8217;s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is !!!8216;roboclaims!!!8217; which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim.

    6) Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;

    6.1) Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
    6.2) A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
    6.3) How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
    6.4) Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
    6.5) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
    6.6) If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
    6.7) If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed.

    7) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.

    8) The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict !!!8216;keeper liability!!!8217; provisions.

    Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when it is believed that neither the signs, nor any Notice To Keeper mentioned a possible additional sum for outstanding debt and damages.

    9) The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that 104 'legal representative!!!8217;s (or even admin) costs!!!8217; were incurred.

    OR

    The Claimant!!!8217;s representatives, BW Legal, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from 100 to 245.42. I submit the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts, as part of their robo-claim litigation model, in an attempt at double recovery, circumventing the Small Claims costs rules. Further, BW Legal appear to be in contravention of the Solicitors!!!8217; Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.

    10)This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay 85 after exceeding a licence to park free. As far as I can ascertain, based upon the very vague particulars of claim and complete lack of evidence and photographs, and without having been furnished with the alleged signage 'contract', none of this applies in this material case.

    11) In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant, then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

    11.1) The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.
    11.2) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.
    11.3) Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

    11.3.1) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
    11.3.2) It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not visible or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
    11.4.3) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
    11.5.4) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.

    12) BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

    12.1) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
    12.2) the sum pursued exceeds 100.
    12.3) there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

    13) No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    It is believed Vehicle Control Services Ltd do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

    13.1) The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

    13.2) The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

    13.3) It was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by parking expert barrister and Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, who clarified the fact that a registered keeper can only be held liable for parking events on private land if the parking operator fully complies with the POFA, Schedule 4, and not by presumption or any other legal argument.
    I submit that I was not afforded any method by which to appeal, nor any information about complaints procedures to the landowner. This omission prevented me from being able to get this charge cancelled by the Retailer, a right that I believe existed as an exemption clause for shoppers written into the landowner contract/retailer user manual but a material fact which is withheld from consumers. If I could have appealed to POPLA or had been informed that the Retailer/landowner could deal with such complaints and cancel charges, I would have done so

    14) The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

    14.1) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on XX XXX 2018.

    14.2) Sent a template, well-known to be !!!8220;generic cut and paste!!!8221; 'Particulars' of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

    Signed XXXX Date XXXX


    Long winded huh?
    Last edited by SophS; 17-01-2018 at 7:36 PM.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 17th Jan 18, 8:13 PM
    • 35,912 Posts
    • 20,185 Thanks
    Quentin
    The date of acknowledgement of service was 5th Jan so I'm guessing 28 days after that is DDay? does this include sat & sun?...........
    Originally posted by SophS

    You don't get 28 days from AOS.

    After AOS the total time to get the defence in is 28 days, (calendar days - including saturday/sunday), from service date (not AOS date,)

    So unless you did your AOS on or before service date you need to amend your diary to show the correct last date for filing your defence.

    Filing late can mean you lose, get a ccj by default and either pay it within a month of the CCJ or have the ccj against you on credit filed for 6 years
    Last edited by Quentin; 17-01-2018 at 8:17 PM.
    • SophS
    • By SophS 18th Jan 18, 12:14 AM
    • 42 Posts
    • 37 Thanks
    SophS
    Sorry I misunderstood. So the !!!8220;issue date!!!8221; on the CCBC Claim form is 3rd Jan.

    I completed the Acknowledgment online on the 4th Jan the same night I made first post above.

    So I count 28 days from issue date stated on the CCBC form.
    Which makes defence deadline 31st Jan. which needs to be !!!8220;posted!!!8221; a few days before to reach them on time I!!!8217;m guessing. Eg 1st class signed for.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

68Posts Today

1,912Users online

Martin's Twitter