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
    • tonkasdog
    • By tonkasdog 19th Feb 18, 1:36 PM
    • 35Posts
    • 8Thanks
    tonkasdog
    Court Claim Form N1 Received for PCN 18 months ago
    • #1
    • 19th Feb 18, 1:36 PM
    Court Claim Form N1 Received for PCN 18 months ago 19th Feb 18 at 1:36 PM
    Hi guys,

    Hoping I can get some help regarding a county court claim form received on the 16 Feb from County Court Business centre in Northampton. The claimant is "Civil Enforcement Limited"

    It relates to one of our drivers (we are a Ltd company operating minibuses) who inadvertently parked at a retail park for just under 3 hours between jobs on the 27 Aug 2016

    The claim form has been issued to our company but they have the company name slightly wrong, for example:

    joe bloggs services Ltd instead of joe bloggs services (NW) Ltd (thought I'd mention this in case it could result in a get out of jail free card!)

    I have done an "Acknowledgement of service" online this morning to buy extra time and have stated that we dispute the whole claim.

    They are claiming £338.76 in total. I have made a note that I need to submit a defence by the 16 March 18, does this sound right?

    Any advice on how to compile our defence or what we should/shouldn't include would be very much appreciated.

    Look forward to any help you can offer.

    Thanks
Page 2
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Feb 18, 10:32 PM
    • 57,564 Posts
    • 71,135 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You need to delete that off tonkasdog's thread, as this is unfair. Start your own thread.
    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.

    • tonkasdog
    • By tonkasdog 23rd Feb 18, 8:20 AM
    • 35 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    tonkasdog
    [QUOTE]Ring the CCBC and explain that the AOS was done on behalf of the company./QUOTE]

    Hi Coupon-mad, just been looking at the AOS I sent in and it has the company name as the Defendant and where I have signed at the bottom it has - position or office held if signing on behalf of firm or company - so I think this point should be covered
    • tonkasdog
    • By tonkasdog 23rd Feb 18, 9:56 AM
    • 35 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    tonkasdog
    Hi guys,
    I have drafted a defence this morning, from the others I've read, mine looks pretty standard apart from a few details erased and changed. A few key facts are: I wasn't the driver, I can prove who was but won't, the parking incident took place 18 months ago and I have never responded to CEL.

    In the County Court Business Centre
    Claim Number XXX Between:
    Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant) v XXX (Defendant)





    Defence Statement

    I deny I am liable to the Claimant for the entirety of the claim on the following grounds, any of which are fatal to the Claimant!!!8217;s case:

    1. The Claim Form issued on the 16th Feb 2018 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction, as it was not signed by a legal person. The claim does not have a valid signature and is not a statement of truth. It states that it has been issued by !!!8220;Civil Enforcement Limited!!!8221; as the Claimant!!!8217;s Legal Representative. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by a person holding a senior position and state the position. If the party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth but in his own name and not that of his firm or employer.

    2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017) and 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.

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

    b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

    c) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.

    d) 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.

    e) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

    f) Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;
    (i) 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
    (ii) A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
    (iii) How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
    (iv) Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
    (v) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
    (vi) If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
    (vii) If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed

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


    3. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (!!!8220;POFA 2012!!!8221. Such a notice was not served within 14 days of the parking event and when the notice was served, did not fully comply with statutory wording. The Claimant is therefore unable to hold me liable under the strict !!!8216;keeper liability!!!8217; provisions:


    The Claimant did not comply with POFA 2012 and give the registered keeper opportunity at any point to identify the driver. A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid, must be delivered no later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked. No ticket was left on the windscreen and no notice to keeper was sent within the 14 days required to comply with POFA 2012 only a speculative invoice entitled !!!8220;Parking Charge Notice!!!8221; which was sent outside of the 14 day period, which did not comply with POFA 2012. This would exclude the registered keeper being liable for any charges.


    Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert, stated that !!!8220;However keeper information is obtained, there is no !!!8216;reasonable presumption!!!8217; in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. !!!8221;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 !!!8216;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 neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible £338.78 for outstanding debt and damages.


    4. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee, who drew up the paperwork is remunerated by Civil Enforcement Ltd and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 'legal representative!!!8217;s (or even admin) costs' were incurred. The Defendant believes that Civil Enforcement Ltd has artificially inflated this claim. They are claiming legal costs when not only is this not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that they have not incurred legal costs. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever. The claimant has not explained how the claim has increased from the original parking notice to £338.78 If the claimant alleges that they claim the cost of its in-house administration, these cannot be recovered - they are staff performing the task that they have been employed for and essential to the claimant's business plan.

    5. 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. None of this applies in this material case.

    6. 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.


    a) 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.


    b) 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.
    c) Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (i) 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.
    (ii) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
    (iii) It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent 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.
    (iv) 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.
    (v) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.

    d) BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (i) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
    (ii) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
    (iii) there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

    7. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    It is believed Civil Enforcement 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. Due to the length of time, the Defendant has little to no recollection of the day in question. It would not be reasonable to expect a registered keeper to be able to recall the potential driver(s) of the vehicle over 18 months later. In any case, there is no such obligation in law and this was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by parking expert barrister and Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, who also clarified the fact that registered keeper can only be held liable under the POFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument.

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

    a) failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 16th Feb 2018.

    b) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste '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.

    c) failed to issue a compliant notice to keeper within 14 days under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 such that Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict !!!8216;keeper liability!!!8217; provisions.
    The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

    I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.


    Signed XXX
    Date XXX
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 24th Feb 18, 12:25 AM
    • 57,564 Posts
    • 71,135 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Hi Coupon-mad, just been looking at the AOS I sent in and it has the company name as the Defendant and where I have signed at the bottom it has - position or office held if signing on behalf of firm or company - so I think this point should be covered
    Originally posted by tonkasdog
    Ah, good, sounds fine then.

    Over the weekend, as the forum is busy, reply again if you get no comments on the draft defence.

    It's a DEFENCE not a DEFENCE STATEMENT and a company can't say 'I deny I am liable'


    Defence Statement

    I deny I am liable???to the Claimant for the entirety of the claim on the following grounds, any of which are fatal to the Claimant's case...

    At the end I reckon you need to state your position in the company, under your signature.

    Wait and see what others say.

    I also think you need something about CPS v AJH Films , distinguishing this case from that one, and saying that there is no evidence that the driver was acting in a work capacity, nor even that the driver was an employee (say this only if it's perfectly OK if this was your employee's wife using this car to do her shopping). Therefore there is nothing to justify pursuing a company registered keeper in the absence of any 'vicarious liability' flowing back to the keeper firm, from the actions of an unidentified driver who - given the location of the car park - appears to have been going about their normal daily life at a retail location. Even if the driver is shown to have been an employee, this retail park location shows on the balance of probabilities they were off duty at the material time.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 24-02-2018 at 12:37 AM.
    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.

    • tonkasdog
    • By tonkasdog 24th Feb 18, 9:38 AM
    • 35 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    tonkasdog
    Thanks, that's an excellent point and one I'd missed. If I change it to
    The company denies liability to the Claimant..............?
    The second point, regarding the driver acting in a work capacity, is a good one as he would of been on a break and free to dispose of his time as he sees fit. Unfortunately I couldn't suggest it could of been his wife as the driver needs a vocational licence, qualification card etc
    I'll make some changes, look up the case you mentioned and repost the draft.
    Thanks again
    • tonkasdog
    • By tonkasdog 1st Mar 18, 9:26 AM
    • 35 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    tonkasdog
    Hi guys, after a busy few days I have re-jigged my defence.

    Coupon-mad I have added the following thanks to your advice:

    h) CEL cannot hold the company liable because they don't use POFA Notice to Keepers, and if the driver was at a retail park it's impossible that the driver was engaged in business on behalf of the company.

    So here is the full defence, feedback or any changes needed would be much appreciated. ;-)


    In the County Court Business Centre
    Claim Number E3GM010Q Between:
    Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant) v XXXXXXXXX Ltd (Defendant)





    Defence

    The Company denies liability to the Claimant for the entirety of the claim on the following grounds, any of which are fatal to the Claimant!!!8217;s case:

    1. The Claim Form issued on the 16th Feb 2018 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction, as it was not signed by a legal person. The claim does not have a valid signature and is not a statement of truth. It states that it has been issued by !!!8220;Civil Enforcement Limited!!!8221; as the Claimant!!!8217;s Legal Representative. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by a person holding a senior position and state the position. If the party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth but in his own name and not that of his firm or employer.

    2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017) and 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.

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

    b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

    c) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.

    d) 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.

    e) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

    f) Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;
    (i) 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
    (ii) A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
    (iii) How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
    (iv) Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
    (v) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
    (vi) If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
    (vii) If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed

    g) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.
    h) CEL cannot hold the company liable because they don't use POFA Notice to Keepers, and if the driver was at a retail park it's impossible that the driver was engaged in business on behalf of the company.


    3. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (!!!8220;POFA 2012!!!8221. Such a notice was not served within 14 days of the parking event and when the notice was served, did not fully comply with statutory wording. The Claimant is therefore unable to hold the company liable under the strict !!!8216;keeper liability!!!8217; provisions:


    The Claimant did not comply with POFA 2012 and give the registered keeper opportunity at any point to identify the driver. A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid, must be delivered no later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked. No ticket was left on the windscreen and no notice to keeper was sent within the 14 days required to comply with POFA 2012 only a speculative invoice entitled !!!8220;Parking Charge Notice!!!8221; which was sent outside of the 14 day period, which did not comply with POFA 2012. This would exclude the registered keeper being liable for any charges.


    Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert, stated that !!!8220;However keeper information is obtained, there is no !!!8216;reasonable presumption!!!8217; in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. !!!8221;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 !!!8216;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 neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible £338.78 for outstanding debt and damages.


    4. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee, who drew up the paperwork is remunerated by Civil Enforcement Ltd and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 'legal representative!!!8217;s (or even admin) costs' were incurred. The Defendant believes that Civil Enforcement Ltd has artificially inflated this claim. They are claiming legal costs when not only is this not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that they have not incurred legal costs. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever. The claimant has not explained how the claim has increased from the original parking notice to £338.78 If the claimant alleges that they claim the cost of its in-house administration, these cannot be recovered - they are staff performing the task that they have been employed for and essential to the claimant's business plan.

    5. 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. None of this applies in this material case.

    6. 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.


    a) 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.


    b) 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.
    c) Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (i) 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.
    (ii) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
    (iii) It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent 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.
    (iv) 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.
    (v) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.

    d) BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (i) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
    (ii) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
    (iii) there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

    7. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    It is believed Civil Enforcement 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. Due to the length of time, the Defendants representative has little to no recollection of the day in question. It would not be reasonable to expect a registered keepers representative to be able to recall the potential driver(s) of the vehicle over 18 months later. In any case, there is no such obligation in law and this was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by parking expert barrister and Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, who also clarified the fact that registered keeper can only be held liable under the POFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument.

    The Defendants representative denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

    a) failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 16th Feb 2018.

    b) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste '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.

    c) failed to issue a compliant notice to keeper within 14 days under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 such that Claimant is unable to hold the company liable under the strict !!!8216;keeper liability!!!8217; provisions.
    The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

    I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.


    Signed XXX
    Director
    On behalf of XXXX
    Date XXX
    • tonkasdog
    • By tonkasdog 2nd Mar 18, 1:09 PM
    • 35 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    tonkasdog
    ***** Bump *****
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Mar 18, 1:46 AM
    • 57,564 Posts
    • 71,135 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Unashamed bump to see if anyone has any comments?
    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.

    • tonkasdog
    • By tonkasdog 6th Mar 18, 9:32 AM
    • 35 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    tonkasdog
    Please double check defence letter if possible
    Hi guys, just a quick note to see if anyone has time to double check my updated defence letter before I submit it. I understand if your all busy, especially with how much help is needed with these PCN issues. Appreciate everyones contributions so far
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 6th Mar 18, 9:48 AM
    • 2,516 Posts
    • 3,081 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Dont call it a defence "letter"
    I your head you need to get this in the right frame - that this is a legal defence to a supposed invoice they calim you owe them for.

    "If" the driver was at a retail park? No, AS the driver was at a retail park, they were going about their own private business, not under instruction from anyone, and as such their is no possibility that the keeper has liability.


    You have not rebiutted the inflated costs - you need to show that they sent this round the houses; they normally send a "final letter before legal action" THEN send it to further debt collectors

    You ALSO need to make it clear that, notwithstanding they have NOT complied with POFA to hold you, the Keeper, liable for any amount at all, POFA2012 schedule 4 limits the amount that a keeper could be liable for IF they had complied to the amount on the parking charge notice, and no more. The additional costs, which you contest have not been invurred, are none of your concern.
    • tonkasdog
    • By tonkasdog 6th Mar 18, 10:04 AM
    • 35 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    tonkasdog
    Thanks, points taken and I'll amend where necessary
    • tonkasdog
    • By tonkasdog 8th Mar 18, 10:37 AM
    • 35 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    tonkasdog
    Hi Nosferatu,

    I have now headed the letter: Legal Defence
    I have added the following to these 2 paragraphs:

    ) CEL cannot hold the company liable because they don't use POFA Notice to Keepers, and as the driver was at a retail park it's impossible that the driver was engaged in business on behalf of the company, they were going about their own private business, not under instruction from anyone, and as such their is no possibility that the keeper has liability.

    ”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 neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible £338.78 for outstanding debt and damages. The additional costs, which the company contests have not been incurred, are none of its concern.

    Is this better and now good to send?

    Thanks
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 8th Mar 18, 12:22 PM
    • 2,516 Posts
    • 3,081 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    IT IS NOT A LETTER!

    Newbies thread, post two, has examples of how to layout your defence. Follow it. Remember you will need to sign your defence otherwise it is NOT valid, so either print it all out, sign, and scan it back to a PDF ready to email OR you insert a scanned signature into the document, and convert it to PDF - that will result in a smaller file size.

    You need to go into more detail on the costs - as I told you, didnt they send their usual "final letter" when the balance was around £150, then they sent it instead to debt collectors who added more? If so, you MUST ATTACK THAT as an obvious attempt at double recovery.

    What is your deadline? It is 33 days from ISSUE DATE fo rthe court to receive it. There is NOTHING to be gained by rushing this stage.
    • tonkasdog
    • By tonkasdog 8th Mar 18, 12:28 PM
    • 35 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    tonkasdog
    I can't remember what letters where sent as they where all binned.
    There was a lot though. Deadline is 16 March
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 8th Mar 18, 1:00 PM
    • 2,516 Posts
    • 3,081 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Never ever bin letters that hint at a debt. AS youve seen, it hampers you.
    State you have the reasonable belief that the C sent a letter claiming to be a final lettter before court action, but then instead sent this to more debt collectors. AS such they artifically inflated the claim value by claiming to involve furthe rdebt collectors, and you put them to strict proof that all claimed costs were invoiced and paid.
    • tonkasdog
    • By tonkasdog 9th Mar 18, 9:28 AM
    • 35 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    tonkasdog
    Does this sound OK?

    The Defendants representative has reasonable belief that the Claimant sent a letter claiming to be a final letter before court action, but then instead sent this to more debt collectors. As such the Claimants have artificially inflated the claim value by claiming to involve further debt collectors, the Defendants representative puts the Claimant to strict proof that all claimed costs were invoiced and paid
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 9th Mar 18, 11:24 AM
    • 2,516 Posts
    • 3,081 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Youre not the defendants rep. this is the defendant saying this.
    • tonkasdog
    • By tonkasdog 9th Mar 18, 11:50 AM
    • 35 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    tonkasdog
    I am defending my ltd company as that’s who the claim is against. I am the director and company representative
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 9th Mar 18, 4:05 PM
    • 2,516 Posts
    • 3,081 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    I would still state that the defendnat says... not the rep.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Mar 18, 8:50 PM
    • 57,564 Posts
    • 71,135 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I agree, write as 'the Defendant' in the company name. It may mean sentences need rewording to make grammatical sense.
    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.

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

161Posts Today

1,753Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin