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
    • Logblahar
    • By Logblahar 20th Jan 18, 12:57 PM
    • 64Posts
    • 8Thanks
    Logblahar
    County court letter assistance
    • #1
    • 20th Jan 18, 12:57 PM
    County court letter assistance 20th Jan 18 at 12:57 PM
    I know you all must be sick of newbies.....I would like some assistance please with a PCN and court claim.

    On 05 January a Notice of Pending Court Claim was received ( dated 22 December) Nicely over the Christmas period. Where I had been away at family. Prior to this I had received nothing.
    The letter stated that they had sent a letter before claim on 27 November 2017 which I had not received.
    The notice is for a PCN from Oct 2016 for a vehicle that I am the registered keeper. The vehicle is used by other friends and family too.
    The contravention description being Parked without purchasing a valid pay and display ticket at a well known retail park in Keighley.

    I checked my time sheets at work and on the date in question I was working some 20 miles away from the contravention location. ( I have now been able to get pictures from the cctv system at work on the date showing me entering the place of work at 10.00, walking around the facility at 1410 (23 mins) after the so called contravention and leaving work at 1800 when my shift ended.
    I have got no correspondence at all from the parking company just the ones from the legal company and county court business centre?

    I have now received a claim form from the county court business centre on 09 Jan and 3 days later a notice of county court claim issued form from the legal company
    I called the legal company explaining my situation and they did not want to know and just told me that they can't help and I need to call the county court business centre. Tried about 30 times and just either rings and cuts off or does not connect.

    I have gone on money claim and completed the AOS and left evidence blank. That's it.

    The parking company is no longer at the car park in mention and the signs etc have gone and another company is in situ. So I have no evidence of bad signage.

    I could now do with some guidance on where and what to do please? Thank you.
    I will try and uploads the letters I received.
Page 6
    • Logblahar
    • By Logblahar 12th Apr 18, 5:56 PM
    • 64 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    Logblahar
    Each party must deliver to the other party and to the court office copies of all documents on which that party intends to rely at the hearing no later than 14 days before the hearing.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 12th Apr 18, 6:32 PM
    • 2,237 Posts
    • 2,649 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    There you go

    You CANNOT miss that deadline. I'd write the ws now personally.
    • Logblahar
    • By Logblahar 12th Apr 18, 8:36 PM
    • 64 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    Logblahar
    Do I base my witness statement around their PoC as in Post #46.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 12th Apr 18, 8:48 PM
    • 6,617 Posts
    • 5,803 Thanks
    KeithP
    There is no PoC in post #46.

    Do you mean their PoC as in Post #54?
    .
    • Logblahar
    • By Logblahar 12th Apr 18, 8:54 PM
    • 64 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    Logblahar
    There is no PoC in post #46.

    Do you mean their PoC as in Post #54?
    Originally posted by KeithP
    My apologies, you are correct post #54.
    • Logblahar
    • By Logblahar 13th Apr 18, 9:34 AM
    • 64 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    Logblahar
    So do I base my witness statement around their PoC as in Post #54
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 13th Apr 18, 9:47 AM
    • 2,237 Posts
    • 2,649 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Your WS is a series of facts known to you. Start with who the VRM is registerred to, and go forwards in time from there.
    It shoudl support your defence by adducing into evidence the documents photos etc that support your defence. For example a poor NtK that deosnt comply you would adduce and note where it does not comply - as those are facts known to you.

    It is not, strictly, a place to advance arguents. BUt if they make claims you can show not to be true, of course you can point that out - for example in the PoC at line X they state Y but due to Z you can see this isnt true.
    • Logblahar
    • By Logblahar 21st Apr 18, 2:45 PM
    • 64 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    Logblahar
    I am just putting together my witness statement. If anyone has a chance, could they please have a look andadvise me if I am on the right lines or not? Much appreciated.
    • Logblahar
    • By Logblahar 21st Apr 18, 2:49 PM
    • 64 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    Logblahar
    IN THE COUNTY COURT - Claim No.:

    Between

    EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LTD (Claimant)

    -and-

    *********** (Defendant)
    ____________________________
    WITNESS STATEMENT
    __________________________

    I, ************ of **************************************** am the defendant in this case. I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the correct way, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.

    1. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.

    2. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my Defence as already filed.

    3. The Defendant new nothing about the alleged offence until January 2018 when the claimants Solicitors posted a Notice of Pending County Court Claim to the vehicles registered keeper exhibit 1.

    4. On **January 2018 the Defendant phoned the Claimants solicitors to try and discover more information as to how and why the claim had come about. I was simply told that they could not help as papers had been sent to court and I would have to call the court.

    5. After many unsuccessful attempts to call the County Court Business Centre to find out more information, the Defendant sent a letter of further information to the Claimants Solicitors to gain more details of the alleged contravention . This information was only received after the claimants were ordered to submit further and better particulars by a General Form of Judgment or order from District Judge Wright at the County Court Skipton to address matters required by CPR 1998 PD 16.7 and the legal basis on which it claims the defendant is liable to it.

    6. On said date and time of the alleged contravention I was at work on a secure military base some 17 miles from the contravention site and this is supported by exhibit IL1 (Date and time stamped CCTV footage photo's of defendant at work and leave sheet from 2016).

    7. I assert that I am the registered keeper (RK) of the vehicle in question in this case. I was not the driver.

    8. The claimant has produced no evidence of who was driving.

    9. The Claimant cannot "presume" that the Defendant and RK was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention for the following reasons.

    10. There is no law that allows them to do this.

    11. The Defendant asserts under 'Statement of Truth' that he was not the driver on alleged contravention date. This will be repeated in court should the claim come to a hearing.

    12. With no route in law to transfer liability for any alleged contravention, by a driver - to the RK, this claim is null and void. There is no case to answer. The claimant must prove who was driving then take the matter up separately with that person.

    13. Barrister and parking law expert Henry Greenslade was the 'Parking on Private Land Appeals' ("POPLA") Lead Adjudicator from 2012 - 2015. This is an independent appeals service offered by the British Parking Assosciation ("BPA") and Excel was under that Trade Body at the time of the alleged contravention. I adduce as evidence (exhibit XXX) Mr Greenslade's opinion in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 which confirms that there is no presumption in law that a keeper was the driver and that keepers do not have any legal obligation whatsoever, to name drivers to private parking companies. (Exhibit Popla 2015)

    14. The Claimant claims no right to pursue myself the Defendant as the registered keeper as they have failed to meet the conditions of PoFA 2012. I the keeper could only be held liable if the claimant had fully complied with the strict requirements. (Exhibit PoFA Schedule 4)

    15. I refer to Excel v Mr B C7DP8F83 at Sheffield 14/12/2016. In this case the Keeper was not the driver, so he elected to offer no evidence, and put the claimant to strict proof. This of course was an impossibility for the claimant. As Mr B was not the driver, there would be no way they could offer any proof. The Judge made it clear that without proof of driver, and without invoking Keeper Liability, there was no claim against the Keeper. ( Exhibit - Excel Vs Mr B)

    16. The claimant is known to use Elliot V Loake as part of their defence. I refer to Excel v Mr C C8DP37F1 at Stockport 31/10/2016. In this case the judge recognised that Elliot vs Loake was completely irrelevant. In dismissing the claim the judge stated amongst his reasons for doing so that - Excel did not adduce evidence of the driver, and - Elliott v Loake is not persuasive, and can be distinguished. (Exhibit Excel V Mr C).

    17. The claimant may state that if the registered keeper of a vehicle denies they were the driver they will need to produce sufficient evidence in support, failing which it is likely to be held that they were driving. The claimant would wish to rely on the precedent of Elliot vs Loake (1982). This would not be applicable as it has no application whatsoever to this case. The Defendant, as the keeper, is under no obligation to disclose the identity of the driver, and the onus is on the Claimant to prove their case. The POFA Schedule 4 was enacted in 2012 to overcome the issue cited by the BPA, that parking companies were unable to pursue drivers who were not identified. This Claimant cannot dispense with the statute and instead cite an older, irrelevant criminal case of Elliott v Loake, which turned on compelling forensic evidence and made no assumption whatsoever, that a keeper was the driver (See Evidence A)

    18. I refer to the case of Excel v Ian Lamoureux, C3DP56Q5 at Skipton 17/11/2016. The Judge was critical of the claimant's attempts to hold the keeper liable. The judge suggested that the only way Mr Lamoureux could be held liable was if he was the driver and Excel could prove he was (which they could not). The judge stated "I think the claim against Mr Lamoureux is totally misconceived because it has no evidence that he is the driver and it seems to be relying on some assumption that the registered keeper is the driver because it is not seeking to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012". (Exhibit Excel Vs Lamoureux ).

    19. The paragraph numbers mentioned below relate to the Particulars of claim filed by the Claimant's paralegal, Philip Byers-Nolan:

    20. At #5 The Claimant submits that the defendants was the driver of the vehicle on the contravention date.

    21. This is denied by the defendant and the claimant has failed to provide any proof of who the driver was.

    22. It is submitted that the main reason that the Claimant is 'unable to take steps to enforce' the charges they allege apply, is due to their own choice not to use the POFA Schedule 4 prescribed wording in their Notice to Keeper letters. Had they done so, then they might have had cause to pursue me as registered keeper (subject to other evidence, such as adequate notice from signage that existed on the occasion). In the absence of such notices, there is no cause of action. It is noted that, at #2, the Claimant does not intend to rely on Registered keeper liability detailed under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Exhibit IL3 proves the Notices were not worded accordingly.

    23. Re #6: The claimant submits that if the defendant avers they were not the driver and excuse #4 probably meaning #5.

    24. The defendant points out that there is no duty on them to disclose the driver's identity as it is the claimants claim to make and not the defendants.

    25. At 6.1 the claimant states that it is reasonable to assume that the identity of the driver on the contravention date is known to the defendant, but he has unreasonably failed to disclose the same to the claimant.

    26. This is not an obligation or a failure on my part; I had no reason to respond and this is supported by my Exhibit IL2, an extract from the POPLA Annual Report 2015.

    27. Barrister and parking law expert Henry Greenslade was the 'POPLA' ('Parking on Private Land Appeals' independent service offered by the BPA) Lead Adjudicator from 2012 - 2015 and Excel was under that Trade Body at the time of the first mentioned in this claim. I adduce as evidence Mr Greenslade's opinion in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 which confirms that there is no presumption in law that a keeper was the driver and that keepers do not have any legal obligation whatsoever, to name drivers to private parking companies. No adverse inference can be drawn from my choice not to respond to what appeared to be spam.

    28. At 6.2 the claimant states that the driver (the agent) of the vehicle on the contravention date had the authority of the defendant (principal) to drive the vehicle therefore the defendant is liable for the actions of the driver.

    29. The defendant avers that a private individual lending a vehicle to another private person can be said to be bound by contracts they have made is nonsense and this can only be relevant in employer employee relationships or agency relationships which does not exist here.

    30. At 8.1 the claimant states that the defendant was entering into a contract with the claimant. Similarly, at 8.2 the claimant states that the defendant agreed to pay a PCN for any action breaching the Terms and Conditions. At 8.4 the claimant states that the claimant would be entitled to take legal proceedings against the defendant to recover the charge(s) and that the defendant would also be liable for interest and any additional costs incurred.

    31. These assertions are denied, as only the driver can enter into the contract and there has been no proof of who was driving on any occasion and attest that I was not the driver. The claimant would be potentially entitled to take legal proceedings against the defendant to recover the charge(s), if the defendant was the driver or if they had followed rules on Registered keeper liability detailed under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which they have not.

    32. This is denied, as only the driver can enter into the contract and there has been no proof of who was driving on any occasion and attest that I was not the driver. The claimant would entitled to take legal proceedings against the defendant to recover the charge(s), if the defendant was the driver or if they had followed rules on Registered keeper liability detailed under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which they have not.

    33. At #9, again the claimant makes the assumption that the defendant was the driver, which is denied by the defendant. The claimant is put to strict proof of their claim.

    34. At #15 the claimant states that the defendant by his conduct, entered into a contract with the claimant and accepted the Terms and Conditions as the incorporated terms.

    35. This is denied by the defendant as they were not the driver and the claimant has failed to provide any proof of who the driver was.

    36. At #19, 19.1 & 19.2 the claimant states that the defendant is female. The defendant definitely denies this and questions any proof at all of who the driver of the vehicle was at on the contravention date. The Claimant is clearly using copy & paste documents.

    37. At paragraph 35 the claimant asks the court to come up with an alternative remedy if there is no contract.

    38. The defendant would like to point out that there is/was a remedy but the claimant chose not to use it in #2. This is clearly premised as has been pointed out already, that the defendant had a contract in the first place.

    39. The defendant would like to point out in the case of Bagri v BW Legal, the solicitors boast of handling 1 mn claims with only 6 supervising solicitors. The Defendant asks the court that they provide a remedy to Defendants being exposed to shoddy vexatious claims and the abuse/misuse of the court process.

    40. The Claimant states that the Defendants vehicle was captured by the claimants ANPR system having parked in the car park without purchasing a valid pay and display ticket. (that the ANPR camera) 'Identified that the vehicle was parked without purchasing a pay & display ticket'. This is denied and there is no evidence of any single period of parking, let alone evidence of not purchasing a ticket or not displaying it. An ANPR camera image shows none of these things
    Last edited by Logblahar; Yesterday at 9:36 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Apr 18, 12:42 AM
    • 56,149 Posts
    • 69,811 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    6. On said date and time of the alleged contravention the defendant I was at work on a secure military base some 17 miles from the contravention site and this is supported by the defendants exhibit IL1 (Date and time stamped CCTV footage photo's of defendant at work and leave sheet from 2016).
    Love it!

    And so will DJ Wright at Skipton! Great evidence. Change 'the Defendant' to 'I' in your WS.
    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.

    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 22nd Apr 18, 1:08 AM
    • 2,237 Posts
    • 2,649 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    LOADS of repetition I'd say

    For example 22 and 28

    This is quite simple: you were not the driver, can prove it, and they have admitted they dint rely on pofa. You submit there has never Ben a case o answer, the claimant knew this,,and this is merely a last ditch attempt to scare you into paying something you have no liability in

    No need for a detailed breakdown of e v l as you can prove you were not the driver.
    • Logblahar
    • By Logblahar 22nd Apr 18, 4:56 PM
    • 64 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    Logblahar
    LOADS of repetition I'd say

    For example 22 and 28

    This is quite simple: you were not the driver, can prove it, and they have admitted they dint rely on pofa. You submit there has never Ben a case o answer, the claimant knew this,,and this is merely a last ditch attempt to scare you into paying something you have no liability in

    No need for a detailed breakdown of e v l as you can prove you were not the driver.
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001
    Should I therefore remove this altogether?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Apr 18, 5:52 PM
    • 56,149 Posts
    • 69,811 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes, and DJ Wright already knows her stuff!
    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.

    • Logblahar
    • By Logblahar 22nd Apr 18, 5:59 PM
    • 64 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    Logblahar
    I will take out the e v l points. Is the rest ok?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Apr 18, 6:18 PM
    • 56,149 Posts
    • 69,811 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I would remove some repetition here by making this just 2 points, #30 and #31:

    30. At 8.1 the claimant states that the defendant was entering into a contract with the claimant. Similarly, at 8.2 the claimant states that the defendant agreed to pay a PCN for any action breaching the Terms and Conditions. At 8.4 the claimant states that the claimant would be entitled to take legal proceedings against the defendant to recover the charge(s) and that the defendant would also be liable for interest and any additional costs incurred. i.e. parked without payment of the parking tariff for the VRM of the vehicle on site.

    31. This is denied, as only the driver can enter into the contract and there has been no proof of who was driving on any occasion and attest that I was not the driver. The claimant makes the assumption that the defendant was the driver and this is denied by the defendant and no proof to the contrary being provided by the claimant. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their claim to prove driver identity.

    32. At 8.2 the claimant states that the defendant agreed to pay a PCN for any action breaching the Terms and Conditions, i.e. parked without payment of the parking tariff for the VRM of the vehicle on site.

    33. This is denied, as only the driver can enter into the contract and agree to pay a PCN .There has been no proof of who was driving on any occasion and attest that I was not the driver. The claimant makes the assumption that the defendant was the driver and this is denied by the defendant and no proof to the contrary being provided by the claimant. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their claim to prove driver identity.


    34. At 8.4 the claimant states that the claimant would be entitled to take legal proceedings against the defendant to recover the charge(s). The defendant would also be liable for interest and any additional costs incurred.

    31. These assertions are denied, as only the driver can enter into the contract and there has been no proof of who was driving on any occasion and attest that I was not the driver. The claimant would be potentially entitled to take legal proceedings against the defendant to recover the charge(s), if the defendant was the driver or if they had followed rules on Registered keeper liability detailed under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which they have not.
    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.

    • Logblahar
    • By Logblahar 22nd Apr 18, 6:30 PM
    • 64 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    Logblahar
    I would remove some repetition here by making this just 2 points, #30 and #31:
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    I will do that. Thank you for the advice.
    • Logblahar
    • By Logblahar 22nd Apr 18, 9:48 PM
    • 64 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    Logblahar
    LOADS of repetition I'd say

    For example 22 and 28

    This is quite simple: you were not the driver, can prove it, and they have admitted they dint rely on pofa. You submit there has never Ben a case o answer, the claimant knew this,,and this is merely a last ditch attempt to scare you into paying something you have no liability in

    No need for a detailed breakdown of e v l as you can prove you were not the driver.
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001

    Are you saying I should remove 22 and 28 and replace it with wording along the lines of what is written above?

    E v L is Elliot v Loake yes?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 22nd Apr 18, 9:50 PM
    • 17,283 Posts
    • 27,228 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    E v L is Elliot v Loake yes?
    Standard forum shorthand for the case.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Logblahar
    • By Logblahar 22nd Apr 18, 9:54 PM
    • 64 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    Logblahar
    Standard forum shorthand for the case.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Thanks just checking it was not Excel vs Lamoureux
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

957Posts Today

7,986Users online

Martin's Twitter