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
    • Potatini
    • By Potatini 12th Apr 18, 7:44 PM
    • 23Posts
    • 5Thanks
    Potatini
    SCS for parking with permit!
    • #1
    • 12th Apr 18, 7:44 PM
    SCS for parking with permit! 12th Apr 18 at 7:44 PM
    Hi Folks, first thing first - thank you for running this help section, who's being a life saver! This is my case. I hope you can help me through it and kick this "people" away for good!

    I received a total of 5 parking fines for being parked in the staff car park at the hospital where I work, despite I have a valid permit disc on the dash and daily scratched scratch card. Together with the parking permit disc, the staff parking area is accessible only by swiping a name badge, which I also own. I used the facilities within standard working hours, although my permit is valid for 24/7. Colleagues told me that they had the same issue and recommended to discard the notices, as "they'll stop writing" ... but I received a standard LBC from SCS Law instead! I've been naive, I know. At least I kept all the "ignored" threatening paperwork.

    The LBC (I can't attach a link) seemed to be complete with details of the fines and I think responds to the criteria given by the POFA. at least for what I can understand! I informed myself as much as I could, reading through similar cases on your forum, trying to understand what I could do to defend myself. I'm not very good in this, tho, but - I replied to their LBC as follows:

    Dear Sirs, I have received your Letter Before Claim dated 22 February 2018. As requested in your reply form, please receive a detailed reply hereby. I deny any debt to CP Plus Ltd. The driver is not identified in your letter and your client has failed to meet the requirements of The Protection of Freedoms Act, schedule 4 to pursue me as keeper.

    As the registered keeper of the vehicle I have not received a Notice to Keeper. As you can see, the law is unequivocal on this matter. A Notice to Keeper must be served where the driver has not been identified. Without this, the creditor does not have the right to recover the charge from the keeper of the vehicle. As there has been no admission regarding who was driving the vehicle and no evidence of this has been provided, the Private Parking Operator has failed to comply with the keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Paragraph 4 of The Act states that: (1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2)The right under this paragraph applies only if: (a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met. The condition specified in paragraph 6 is “that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor): (a) has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8; or (b) has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9." Paragraph 9 states this notice to keeper must be given within a "period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given" It would be unreasonable of CP Plus to rely on the assumption that the Registered Keeper was the driver (as in Elliot v Loake) which I would like to highlight was a criminal case with ample evidence against the driver.

    Your Letter Before Claim refers to "a number of letters" sent to me by your Client - however I am now informing you that I was not in receipt of these items of correspondence and was therefore unable to act upon them at the time. Please provide copies of all documentation and correspondence, along with proof of dates of postage. When these are supplied, please also confirm whether the intended action is founded on a contractual charge, a breach of a contract or trespass.

    Please confirm that your client's contract with the land-holder includes specific authority to take legal action and that this will be produced for the court. Whilst I await your timely response, I would also like to remind you of the guidance given to operators in POPLA's 2015 Annual Report by Henry Greenslade, Chief Adjudicator in which he reminded them of a keeper's right not to name the driver whilst still not being held liable for an unpaid parking charge under Schedule 4 of POFA. "There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no 'reasonable presumption' in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver.

    Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988“a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.'' I would like to remind both CP Plus and SCS Law that a PCN with the basic non-statutory wording that your client freely chooses to use, can only hold the driver liable. Therefore, please kindly show me your client's evidence of whom the driver was at each occurrence. When I receive the documents and your explanations I will be in a position to make a more detailed response.

    It would be unreasonable to proceed with litigation before you have clarified your client's cause of action.
    I've promptly received their reply, in which they said basically that they are claiming with me as a keeper, attaching their reasons and reiterate that if I don't pay £400, they'll take me to court with no further notice. However, there was no reply about who owns the land and what type of breech are they referring to, points that I'll surely reiterate in my next letter.

    Sadly, due to house moving and holidays, I missed the 14 days term to respond to their second letter I know another envelope from SCS has reached my previous address yesterday (maybe calling for court proceedings?) and this is now on my way. If it can be of any use, I could try to call again the hospital, who owns the parking grounds and ask for grace, but I doubt they'll intervene, as they previously stated they "can't do anything to help, once CP is in the way" (Is that true?) when I got in touch beforehand. In addition to that, I'm not employed by the hospital anymore, so I'll probably be ignored.

    I'll appeal to the all mighty forum, as this is going beyond my knowledge and all this reading is overwhelming! I'm writing my response, requesting once again proof of their the authority to take legal action and why am I receiving their correspondence, as the parking area can be accessed by an employee with a current swipe card only and there is a parking permit registered with the number plate of the "pirate car".

    Should I contest their affirmation that POPLA doesn't apply to my case and request a POPLA code? What else should I add? Can anyone help writing this letter in the most effective way, please? Thanks for your support!
    Last edited by Potatini; 15-04-2018 at 5:27 PM. Reason: Adjusting formatting
Page 2
    • Honey-Dee
    • By Honey-Dee 16th May 18, 4:33 AM
    • 40 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    Honey-Dee
    I received a total of 5 parking fines for being parked in the staff car park at the hospital where I work, despite I have a valid permit disc on the dash and daily scratched scratch card. Together with the parking permit disc, the staff parking area is accessible only by swiping a name badge, which I also own. I used the facilities within standard working hours, although my permit is valid for 24/7. Colleagues told me that they had the same issue and recommended to discard the notices, as "they'll stop writing" ... but I received a standard LBC from SCS Law instead! I've been naive, I know.
    Your case sounds so much like mine and my Trust except my Trust uses UKPC. Good luck with this. I am still in similar situation right now..... and Trust not very helpful.
    • Potatini
    • By Potatini 16th May 18, 2:10 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Potatini
    Can they actually look reasonable?
    • Potatini
    • By Potatini 10th Jun 18, 9:41 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Potatini
    Hi,
    I finally have a reply from SCS! They responded point by point to all my requests on the previous letter https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5826850#12, as follows:
    1. Their claim is contractual, they are authorised by the Trust, the vehicle is breaching the T&Cs.
    2. Their client complies to the Protection of freedoms Act 2012, hence pursuing me as keeper.
    3. The answer was "please see above".
    4. There are a number of photos as an "evidence" of the claim, at least 2 per each claim: a) One depicting the car from the front, showing their "yellow slip" on the windscreen, the dashboard is partly visible (since the angle of shot) and there's a very minimal view of the location (in some pics only the car is visible. b) Another one depicting the n. plate only.
    5. There is a letter on CP Plus headed paper attached, in which the Trust authorises the contractor to take "action in respect of all unpaid parking charges in the name of the contractor".
    6. There is a photo focused on one of the signs that is presumably at site. Such picture completely fails to show any surroundings to show where the sign may be.
    7. They state each charge was £40, to with they've added £40 "as by signage" (on the sign in the attached photo is stated that parking charges "not paid within the given period may incur in additional charges".
    8. Their answer is "see paragraph 4 above".
    At the end they reiterate I am liable as a keeper, as per POFA 4(1), as I haven't disclosed the driver's details and that my vehicle was clearly breaching the T&C indicated on the signage on site, hence they still expect me to pay the "owing".

    I didn't expect them to be so articulate in their reply.
    I scanned the forum for further ways of handling, but I think I've written most of the suggestions in my previous two letters. Next life I'm a lawyer!!!
    What's best to do now? Any recommendations would be cherished.
    Thank you!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Jun 18, 9:56 PM
    • 64,101 Posts
    • 76,693 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I didn't expect them to be so articulate in their reply.
    Well they are a law firm, of sorts, so someone can write a decent sentence.

    Seen it all before, any old 'Head of Legal' Neanderthal thug from any old firms (solicitor firms et al, naming no names, not specifically SCS here in case they get shirty!) can write in legalese, but it doesn't mean they will win cases or are the cleverest person in the room.

    Their client complies to the Protection of freedoms Act 2012, hence pursuing me as keeper.
    CP Plus generally don't comply when they post a NTK (with no windscreen PCN first) but I assume that your windscreen PCNs were followed by NTKs issued by 'PCS' (aka Debt Recovery Plus), who do make a stab at the required POFA wording. So they might be able to argue that.

    You said earlier:
    one of the infractions was "not displaying a permit" when the permit was visible?
    So does the latest photo evidence show that permit, or have they withheld a photo or two? What is missing do you think?

    If not, let them try a claim if they so decide and we will help you to defend it.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 10-06-2018 at 9:59 PM.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Potatini
    • By Potatini 10th Jun 18, 10:17 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Potatini
    Hi #CouponMad, thanks for replying so quickly.
    The photos attached represent my car from the front, hence the disc permit is visible in most pictures. In the first occurrence only the disc permit is not visible and this is because it was on the dashboard (to my knowledge, the reason is the car was booked in for windscreen chip repair/change).
    The angle of the photo also does not clearly or completely show the dashboard flat bit, which was on that instance very useful to them, so they could claim there was no "today" dated scratch card, when I'm sure it would have been displayed correctly.
    Two photos "prove" my vehicle was park outside the designated bays, in an ample area where the car was of no obstruction whatsoever. In one of the two "parking outside the designated bay" occurrences, my car was parked inside what used to be a white line, that has been painted over/cancelled AND this is visible in their photo.
    My questions are: how can we tell where he photos were taken? Most represent no surrounding. And how did my vehicle enter a restricted area, accessible only with valid permit, when they claim the permit wasn't shown?
    Last edited by Potatini; 10-06-2018 at 10:22 PM. Reason: clarifications
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Jun 18, 10:59 PM
    • 64,101 Posts
    • 76,693 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You don't need to answer those questions; the PPC will have to, in court submissions.

    Or, send them a LBC for, say, £750 damages for harassment and data misuse, citing the fact that you have primacy of contract (a right of way and right to park) in the form of permission from the landowner and the permit is clearly visible in their evidence. They had no reasonable cause to obtain your data in one or more of the 'parking charge' events cited, have issued predatory and unjustified tickets and you suspect the ticketer was untrained in the BPA Code of Practice because the photos are diabolical as evidence. Thus, CP Plus have been processing data illegally (in breach of the DPA and now in breach of the GDPR) and have already been clearly told that this harassment has caused significant and serious distress.

    Use those words.

    If you fancy that fightback, then you'd have to be serious about lodging a claim, which costs a small sum in court fees up front, for £750 claim (Google small claim fees) and you then add that fee to the claim.

    Can be done:

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/05/motorist-awarded-900-for-data.html

    You might feel more comfortable striking before they do, and in your case you have already fairly warned their solicitor about the distress caused and the facts re the permit, and their own evidence shows that permit was at all material times displayed for inspection and they have failed to evidence where the signs are in relation to the car.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 10-06-2018 at 11:04 PM.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Potatini
    • By Potatini 11th Jun 18, 6:50 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Potatini
    Hi again and thanks a lot for your precious support.
    The idea of taking them to court makes me very nervous.
    I don't think I have the knowledge to defend myself in front of a judge. Plus it seems quite costly.
    Would you say this is my best option? Do you have another strategy in mind?
    Or do you think it would be of any use, if I reply with the above, stating I will have to claim for my personal damages as part of my defence, if they take me to court. (can this be done in the same court summons?)
    It's not that I want to pay, but I don't want to end up worse off. This issue is really wearing me down and I'm loosing the will to fight.
    I'm looking forward to any further advice.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jun 18, 2:08 AM
    • 64,101 Posts
    • 76,693 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    The idea of taking them to court makes me very nervous.
    I don't think I have the knowledge to defend myself in front of a judge. Plus it seems quite costly.
    Why would you as claimant, be defending yourself?

    How is it costly?!

    court summons?
    What Summons? It's not a criminal matter!

    It's not that I want to pay, but I don't want to end up worse off.
    How will that happen, do you imagine? These PCNs are a very low £40 a pop, with an arguable £40 added on for no reason at all. Hardly massive money and even if a poster on this forum (VERY RARELY) loses a defended case here, they don't pay more than the likes of SCS have invented already!

    Whatever they are begging for now is no different than the 'risk' in court, so why would anyone think about just paying the daft amount demanded without fighting it properly, when we see 99% of cases won here?

    Would you rather wait for them to sue you, then defend? That's fine, we almost always see ordinary people like you (very nervous and inexperienced, non-legal minded) win. But yes, you would have to defend yourself in front of a Judge!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 12-06-2018 at 2:13 AM.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Potatini
    • By Potatini 13th Jun 18, 6:47 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Potatini
    As demonstrated, my knowledge is quite poor, although I'm trying my best here!
    But before we even get close to court calls, is there a way I can get back to their letter to deter them?
    I think I've asked anything I found on various posts on the forum.
    Short of reiterating that I'm being harassed, and that their photos are completely insufficient as a proof, can you think of other strategies?
    Thanks for your support
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 13th Jun 18, 7:05 PM
    • 10,734 Posts
    • 11,154 Thanks
    KeithP
    I do not believe there is anything more you can do to deter them.

    My suggestion is to sit back and wait patiently for a Claim Form to drop through your letterbox.
    .
    • Potatini
    • By Potatini 14th Jun 18, 7:58 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Potatini

    Thanks, I'll try not to over-stress in the wait!
    Unless anyone of the kind experts out there has a sparkle for a good reply, I'll keep you posted.
    Thank you for the advice and all the help so far.
    • Potatini
    • By Potatini 6th Aug 18, 10:24 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Potatini
    Court Defence, please help!
    Hi all,
    as expected I received the "court action pack"on 11/7.
    I've done the online submissions timely and worked (for way too long) on some form of defence letter, which I aim in sending this out ASAP, previous your kind review. There is so much to put light on. I think that probably all my points should be expanded or backed by relevant laws or reference to previous cases, but despite extensive reading I could't find pertinent highlights about PCNs in a gated area accessible only to permit holders.
    I have a nice set of appendixes that I'm tidying up to attach.

    Please, could you have a read to the below statement of defence and give me your opinion?
    In particular, can you think of anything strong to reinforce point n. 5 and 6?
    Should I add a paragraph asking the court to consider my time costs money too and I may decide to claim for it with the Claimant?
    I have left some comments for you in capital letters for clarity. And sorry for the formatting. It looks so much better in MS Word!
    Thank you so much for the time to read. It's so reassuring to know there is a strong and knowledgeable community to back me in this difficult one

    I am xx defendant in this matter and an unrepresented, honest consumer with no experience of Court procedure.
    Should I not present my case as professionally as the Claimant, I trust that the Court excuses my inexperience and reserves any criticism for the extremely sparse particulars filed by the Claimant’s Solicitors.


    I, the Defendant, deny liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reason.


    1. This claim refers to parking incidents within the gated staff car park at St. Peter's Hospital Trust in Chertsey and involves the defendant's authorised vehicle.
    1.1 The Trust issues annual parking permits to authorised members of staff only. Permits are available for purchase by the member of staff through a portal. (attachment N. XX)
    1.2 The permit is registered in a system and linked to one vehicle's registration number.
    1.3 Weekly scratch cards should accompany the permit and they are to be purchased by the member of staff as required and displayed together with the valid permit.
    1.4 Any member of staff who has obtained a permit would be able to swipe-open the barrier, on board of any vehicle.
    1.5 The staff car park in question has a security gate which can be opened only by authorised members of staff who can swipe their enabled badge to open the barrier. In this case, it is my belief as registered keeper that the car was parked inside the premise with permission of the landowner, in the form of the above permit.
    1.6 As the registration no. of the permit holder is registered with the Trust, besides being stated on the signage, the defendant's vehicle does not necessarily need to display the permit and any permit is displayed purely for the convenience of their so called “traffic wardens”.
    1.7 To my knowledge, the permit has been always displayed in the car correctly. It was not applied to the windscreen immediately, as the vehicle was purchased in late December 2016 and monitored for potential defects until the beginning of March. When not on the windscreen, the permit was placed on the dashboard, together with the scratch card, in a very visible place. I will expand this topic furthermore at point 9.
    1.8 In addition to this, permits do not guarantee a parking space will be available in the hospital staff car parks and I am aware of members of staff receiving so called “penalty charges” for squeezing an extra car in a gravel car park or for parking on the bay's line in order to attend work. It is deplorable that the operators are aware of the scarce parking and penalise staff, even when they are not causing any nuisance.
    1.9 Hospital staff car parks can not be regarded by the parking Company as designated patient car parks, nor as leisure parking facility, as those are necessary to Hospital staff, for them to serve their purpose to the community.

    2 The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors are speculative serial litigants, engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing thousands of totally meritless Claims, that are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centres in all parts of England & Wales.
    2.1 The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against motorists, alleging 'debts' for parking on Hospital staff car parking areas is not something the Courts should be seen to support.
    2.2 The badly mail-merged documents initially produced by the Claimant contained very little information and obtaining “evidences” about the claim has proved challenging, upsetting and time consuming.
    As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

    3 It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper and was so at the time of the incidents. However, that does not deem the keeper liable as the Claimant has not identified the driver and would therefore need to adhere to the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to hold the Defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach. (IS THIS STILL RELEVANT?Needs expanding?)
    3.1 Due to the length of time, the Defendant has little to no recollection of the days in question. It would not be reasonable to expect a registered keeper to be able to recall the potential driver(s) of the vehicle up to 18 months later (SHOULD I WRITE THIS OR IRRELEVANT).

    4 The Defendant would like to highlight that they didn't receive any correspondence related to the claims, prior to the LBC dated 22 Februay 2018, which was unexpected and source of great concern.
    4.1 Upon written request of he Defendant dated 16 March 2018 (as shown in attachment N. XX), the claimant's solicitors have provided copies of a rather intimidating trail of letters, that are claimed to have supposedly been sent to the same address of Grove House, Osmington, Weymouth but never received.
    4.2 Had correspondence of this nature been received, it would have been acted on appropriately and timely.
    4.3 The copies of the letters provided initially showed the claimant as a sender, followed by harsher DRP and finally signed by SCS Law. The escalating threatening tone of the letters was clearly designed to intimidate the recipient.
    4.4 The Defendant feels that the way the Claimant's solicitor have illustrated potential enforcement actions, such as “instructing (...) High Court Enforcement Officer to attend your address and remove goods” or “applying for an Attachment of earning Order” are a deliberate threat to intimidate the Defendant.

    5 The claim correspondence related to 4 out of 5 occurrences was on CP Plus headed paper and followed by DRP debt collection letters, while the PCN dated 13 February 2018 only was ion PCS (not CP Plus) headed letter, whilst still maintaining the identical format and contact telephone number of the previous CP Plus letters. Only the logo was replaced.
    Also, the following debt collection was operated not only by DRP, but also by Zenith Collections, as a “final warning of legal action”.
    5.1 This change of logo is very confusing and misleading.
    5.2 The Defendant would like explanation about the apparent change in management at the time of issue of PCN dated 13 February 2018, as none was ever provided, nor highlighted with additional temporary signage or letter to the permit holders.
    5.3 The 5 occurrences took place within the boundaries of the same staff car park and there was no evident notice of “change in jurisdiction”. The third PCN dated 13 February 2018 is no exception.

    6 The sudden upcoming of this situation involving me as a keeper of the vehicle, caused me a considerable amount of distress, to the point that it led to a nervous breakdown, when I was already off work for delicate health reasons. (EXPAND??)

    7 Upon analysis, the LBC dated 22 February 2018 was lacking of the necessary information (UNDER POFA ??) to identify the nature of the claims and their background, such as:
    7.1 Full particulars of the parking charges
    7.2 Reason why no preliminary correspondence was sent
    7.3 The full legal identity of the landowner who contracted CP Plus
    7.4 A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that CP Plus have their authority in pursuing the Defendant.
    7.5 Photographic evidences to represent the position of the vehicle and signage in relation to each occurrence.
    7.6 To provide a copy of the signs that can constitute evidence that those were actually on site at the time of the alleged occurrences and formed a contract with the driver.
    The Defendant wrote to the Claimant requesting the above information on 16 March 2018.


    8 The photographic evidence provided are not exhaustively depicting the alleged breach, nor are compliant with the BPA Code of Practice
    8.1 The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:
    8.1.1 “When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.”
    8.1.2 The so-called parking charge notice in question contains two photographs of the vehicle:
    8.1.3 Neither of these images identify the vehicle entering or leaving the car park. The photos are of poor quality showing only the registration number with some clarity. There’s no evidence in the photos of the vehicle entering or leaving a car park. There’s no evidence in the photos showing the location of the car due to lack of any marker or sign to relate these photos to the location stated.
    8.2 As from point 9.1.3, none of the photographs show that the vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way See photographs n. XX, XX, XX.
    8.3 The photos provided as evidence fail to identify where in the car park was the vehicle, to the extent that, even having worked at the Hospital I cannot determine for certain where the car has been captured in the attached photographs.
    8.4 Also they fail to contextualise the signage with the position of the vehicle, despite being obviously a necessary proof of the alleged claim, is inexcusable omission. (See photographs)
    8.5 The attached picture n. xx represents a close-up of a sign with no representation location
    8.6 Further explanation is needed in regards to the alleged statement: “parking outside of designated bays”, when lines are visible in the attached photograph n. XX.
    8.7 In regards to point 9.4, I'd like this Court to take not of the poor state of maintenance of the marking lines within the entire car park (not to speak of other tarmac or structural maintenance issues). Some old lines are still visible, some have faded or are partially canceled, other ones have been DYI-painted with dark paint, but are still visible. It's unequivocal that this is a cause of confusion.
    8.8 Failing to take any relevant photos of the car, particularly the full extent of windscreen and dashboard invalidates the claim, as the required documentation was present, but not made visible by the angle the operator photographed the car at.

    9 Signage
    9.1 In the absence of any proof of adequate signage contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case
    9.2 The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
    9.3 No contract is offered to anyone who lacks a voucher or permit. it would seem that the driver was actually authorised to park by virtue of the payments and therefore there has been no breach.
    9.4 The only clear large lettering was 'NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING' and it is submitted that the presence of the vehicle was certainly not 'unauthorised'. In fact, the vehicle was authorised by the permit issued in virtue of the owner's contract of employment with the Trust

    10 It is still to be cleared :
    10.1 If the charges were based on damages for breach of contract and, if so, to provide justification of this sum
    10.2 If the additional charge was based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking and, if so, to provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.

    11 Similar court cases
    11.1 (ANY CASES KNOWN TO YOU TO BACK THIS UP???)

    12 I request the court strikes out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.
    These are some of the comments made by the MPs in Parliament concerning the unregulated parking industry (Feb 2018): https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill “Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; unfair treatment; signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued; ''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; bloodsuckers; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; extortionate fines; rogue operators; ''sense of injustice''; unfair charges and notices; willfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; unreasonable; a curse; harassing; operating in a disgusting way; appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing; loathed; outrageous scam; dodgy practice; outrageous abuse; unscrupulous practices; ''the British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-store car park in the Gobi desert''; and finally, by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.
    These are the exact words used, so please excuse the colorful vocabulary. As recommended by Sir Greg Knight MP, he'll be available to provide further information about this statement.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 6th Aug 18, 10:30 PM
    • 10,734 Posts
    • 11,154 Thanks
    KeithP
    What is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?

    Have you done the Acknowledgement of Service?
    If so, when?

    That Defence seems to read more like a Witness Statement in places.
    It also mentions an attachment and photographs.


    I have a nice set of appendixes that I'm tidying up to attach.
    Nothing should be attached to a Defence.
    Save all that for your Witness Statement and evidence.
    Last edited by KeithP; 06-08-2018 at 11:53 PM.
    .
    • Potatini
    • By Potatini 7th Aug 18, 8:32 AM
    • 23 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Potatini
    Hi,
    as mentioned on the top, the date of issue is 11/7.
    I've completed the acknowledgement of service the week after.
    To be very honest, I don't know how to differentiate the statement by the defence...any hint?
    Thank you
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 7th Aug 18, 9:15 AM
    • 1,183 Posts
    • 2,249 Thanks
    Johnersh
    !!!8220;
    I am xx defendant in this matter and an unrepresented, honest consumer with no experience of Court procedure.
    Should I not present my case as professionally as the Claimant, I trust that the Court excuses my inexperience and reserves any criticism for the extremely sparse particulars filed by the Claimant!!!8217;s Solicitors.
    This guff needs to go from ALL templates.

    1. The claimant's particulars are rarely any good
    2. The court knows you are a LiP - that's the point of the small claims procedure
    3. The judicial college issues guidance to judges re LiPs (you get latitude regarding procedures but not carte blanche to miss deadlines and the like)
    4. It makes the assumption as to what the court should do/tells the court what to do. NEVER do that.
    "The best advice I ever got was that knowledge is power and to keep reading."
    DISCLAIMER: I post thoughts as & when they occur. I don't advise. You are your own person and decision-maker. I'm unlikely to respond to DMs seeking personal advice. It's ill-advised & you lose the benefit of a group "take" on events.
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 7th Aug 18, 9:38 AM
    • 1,183 Posts
    • 2,249 Thanks
    Johnersh
    I am xx defendant in this matter and an unrepresented, honest consumer with no experience of Court procedure.
    Should I not present my case as professionally as the Claimant, I trust that the Court excuses my inexperience and reserves any criticism for the extremely sparse particulars filed by the Claimant's Solicitors.
    This guff needs to go from ALL templates.

    1. The claimant's particulars are rarely any good
    2. The court knows you are a LiP - that's the point of the small claims procedure
    3. The judicial college issues guidance to judges re LiPs (you get latitude regarding procedures but not carte blanche to miss deadlines and the like)
    4. It makes the assumption as to what the court should do/tells the court what to do. NEVER do that.

    There is some really good stuff in that defence but it is being drowned by generic guff. I include the lengthy diatribe about parking and Hansard in that. Alright you're hacked off, but the court will only ever apply the law (not what MPs might want it to be in the future). May as well take it out.

    On balance of probabilities if you (the keeper) are the only employee of the trust who is also insured on the car, the DJ has enough to find that you're the driver. I may well be inclined to admit that, drop the clever POFA stuff and say "I paid, in fact, I displayed, there is no loss, no prejudice and I was parked within the rules" if that will be your case. Your later witness statement will be more powerful and you can ask for the traffic operative to attend Staines/Woking county court (whichever you ask to assign it to) for good measure.

    This is quite different from Oxford where the employee dumped his car because there were no spaces.

    Can you Dropbox the photos you do have obscuring the registration still.

    You should also make clear that you understand from pre-action correspondence that this may be for multiple alleged breaches of contract and that there has been a failure to set out the breaches specific to each event.
    Last edited by Johnersh; 07-08-2018 at 10:10 AM.
    "The best advice I ever got was that knowledge is power and to keep reading."
    DISCLAIMER: I post thoughts as & when they occur. I don't advise. You are your own person and decision-maker. I'm unlikely to respond to DMs seeking personal advice. It's ill-advised & you lose the benefit of a group "take" on events.
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 7th Aug 18, 9:52 AM
    • 3,769 Posts
    • 6,189 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    This guff needs to go from ALL templates.
    Perhaps we should have a "get rid of the template guff" week.

    If anyone sees guff - call it out rather than let it continue.
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5760415
    2. Template defences that say nothing https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5818671&page=5#86
    3. Forgetting about the Witness Statement
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 7th Aug 18, 11:16 AM
    • 3,989 Posts
    • 4,786 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    OK with a date of issue of 11/7 you have 33 days frmo then for the court to receive your defence.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 7th Aug 18, 12:15 PM
    • 10,734 Posts
    • 11,154 Thanks
    KeithP
    Hi,
    as mentioned on the top, the date of issue is 11/7.
    Originally posted by Potatini
    No, you said:
    ...as expected I received the "court action pack"on 11/7.
    Originally posted by Potatini
    Which is why I asked "what is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?".
    .
    • Potatini
    • By Potatini 7th Aug 18, 12:31 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Potatini
    Ok, thanks for the useful notes. I'll make some amendments and drop the "header" as suggested by Johnersh. I get that they don't really care...
    I thought it was good to draft a document as detailed as possible...excuse the inexperience!
    So, am I right understanding that I should set up a shorter statement without attached evidences and improve the above to a more detailed Defence?
    What points do you think are unnecessary or in need of shrinking?

    I'll post a link with some photos at soonest. Is it a good idea to go to the place and take my own pictures?
    So many doubts...thanks for the support
    Last edited by Potatini; 07-08-2018 at 6:22 PM. Reason: clarifications
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

2,394Posts Today

8,592Users online

Martin's Twitter