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
    • GolfR12
    • By GolfR12 13th Apr 18, 12:10 PM
    • 67Posts
    • 23Thanks
    GolfR12
    URGENT: County Court Claim
    • #1
    • 13th Apr 18, 12:10 PM
    URGENT: County Court Claim 13th Apr 18 at 12:10 PM
    Hi guys,

    I was wondering if someone could help me out. I have recently moved back into my family house after living with a friend for a few months. I have received 4 county court claims from Northampton County Court for Claims raised by Euro Parking Services! I did not receive any of the other letters as they were returned as gone away by my family as I was not living at home for a few months due to personal reasons.

    The charges claimed are around the 250 mark for each one! I was the keeper of the vehicle (which has since been sold) however, I am unsure of who the driver was at the time as a few people had access to my vehicle.

    I have done some research on the building where they were issued and it is a residential building. The only way to get into the car park is by having a key fob or a resident to let you in. Residents will have to give the visitor a visitor pass to be displayed which I believe was displayed each time.

    I need to file my defence for 2 of the claims by tomorrow (very late notice I know) and I have another couple of weeks for the other 2.

    Unfortunately, I am not very good with these sorts of things and I think I will struggle filing a good defence and was wondering if you guys could assist. Is it ok for me to include all the above details as my defence or would I need to add additional information?

    Many thanks for your help in advance
Page 1
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 13th Apr 18, 12:23 PM
    • 4,158 Posts
    • 5,012 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #2
    • 13th Apr 18, 12:23 PM
    • #2
    • 13th Apr 18, 12:23 PM
    Have you read the NEWBIES thread?

    Go there now. Post 2. Its on page one of this forum.

    It tells you to acknowledge the claims ONLINE. This gives you an EXTRA 14 days, 33 days in total, for the defence to be received.

    DO THIS NOW>

    You will of course need a real defence. A defence is a set of legal arguments why YOU are not liable.
    • GolfR12
    • By GolfR12 13th Apr 18, 12:29 PM
    • 67 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    GolfR12
    • #3
    • 13th Apr 18, 12:29 PM
    • #3
    • 13th Apr 18, 12:29 PM
    Hi,

    Unfortunately I have already done this so the tomorrow is the end of the extra 14 day period !!!128553; this completely slipped my mind until yesterday night!
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 13th Apr 18, 12:47 PM
    • 11,012 Posts
    • 10,981 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #4
    • 13th Apr 18, 12:47 PM
    • #4
    • 13th Apr 18, 12:47 PM
    Can you not ask the court for an extension, claiming blurred vision or something.

    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

    Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.
    Last edited by The Deep; 13-04-2018 at 12:50 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 13th Apr 18, 12:49 PM
    • 20,669 Posts
    • 32,577 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #5
    • 13th Apr 18, 12:49 PM
    • #5
    • 13th Apr 18, 12:49 PM
    Hi,

    Unfortunately I have already done this so the tomorrow is the end of the extra 14 day period !!!128553; this completely slipped my mind until yesterday night!
    Originally posted by GolfR12
    You'd better start urgently drafting something out using examples from the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2. But to be honest, expecting one of the (about three or four) regular advisers on court defences to drop everything and put a good deal of their weekend's free time into this is extremely optimistic.

    Even if you don't get forum help, anything is better than nothing, so use a previous defence that looks to you to more or less fit your circumstances and get that off to the CCBC. If you don't submit a defence, you will receive a default judgment against you and a CCJ for the full amount being sued for.

    If you file a defence, you should get to a hearing in front of a Judge, and even if you lose, the costs awarded against you are likely to be somewhat less than the PPC is currently demanding.
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    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.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 13th Apr 18, 12:54 PM
    • 4,158 Posts
    • 5,012 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #6
    • 13th Apr 18, 12:54 PM
    • #6
    • 13th Apr 18, 12:54 PM
    And they will have had to pay someone to turn up, reducing their income further

    Yes, sorry, your lack of planning doesnt make this our emergency.

    Post 2, get a defence from tehir, tailor it to fit, post it here and we will see what we can do.

    YOU MUST include that they have filed FOUR SEPERATE CLAIMS (give every claim number in every defence, as you need to file four defences in total) when it should clearly have ben one clai, as the same essential facts are under dispute. You ask the claim to strike out (claims 2 - 4) as aan abuse of process, or alternatively to combine them into one hearing. This avoids wastign the courts and defendants time defending a case 4 times over.
    • GolfR12
    • By GolfR12 13th Apr 18, 12:55 PM
    • 67 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    GolfR12
    • #7
    • 13th Apr 18, 12:55 PM
    • #7
    • 13th Apr 18, 12:55 PM
    Hi,

    I completely appreciate that. I would not expect the advisors to go out of the way for me but any help I do get would be highly appreciated. If anyone wants to make a quick 100 for help with a drafted response I would definitely rather pay that to you then pay 250 x 4 to the scum Parking companies lol

    I will try to draft some sort of half decent response this evening
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 13th Apr 18, 1:03 PM
    • 11,362 Posts
    • 11,889 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #8
    • 13th Apr 18, 1:03 PM
    • #8
    • 13th Apr 18, 1:03 PM
    If anyone wants to make a quick 100 for help with a drafted response I would definitely rather pay that to you then pay 250 x 4 to the scum Parking companies lol
    Originally posted by GolfR12
    Having made that offer, please be aware that it is entirely possible that anyone who sends you a private message may not have the same objective as you.

    It is a well know fact that the private parking companies scour forums like this and the opportunity to get an extra 100 may be enough for them to compose a rubbish defence for you.

    Be careful.


    If tomorrow is 35 days from the date of issue of the claim form, then you actually have until 4pm on Monday to file a Defence.
    Looks like a busy weekend for you.
    Last edited by KeithP; 13-04-2018 at 1:05 PM.
    .
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 13th Apr 18, 1:05 PM
    • 38,011 Posts
    • 22,107 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #9
    • 13th Apr 18, 1:05 PM
    • #9
    • 13th Apr 18, 1:05 PM
    Regards your offer

    Take great care over replying to any messages you now get.

    We do have lurkers here who are not who they seem to be.
    • GolfR12
    • By GolfR12 13th Apr 18, 2:09 PM
    • 67 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    GolfR12
    Apologies, I rescind the offer.

    I will try my best to draft a half decent defence this evening and post it on this thread for critique.
    • GolfR12
    • By GolfR12 13th Apr 18, 4:10 PM
    • 67 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    GolfR12
    /showthread.php?p=72977032#post72977032

    Should I use the above template? Unfortunately, I really have no clue where to start or what I am doing.

    Please insert the above after moneysupermarket dot com
    • GolfR12
    • By GolfR12 13th Apr 18, 4:13 PM
    • 67 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    GolfR12
    Apologies, insert the above after forums.moneysavingexpert dot com
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Apr 18, 4:33 PM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,472 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72977032#post72977032

    Yes you can base yours on that one, and add in this bit (edit to MAKE SENSE for your case), you have not lived there a decade, I expect, and might not be the owner:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74141630#post74141630

    But you cannot write as though the Defendant has primacy of contract, unless the home address they have used for you as Defendant, IS actually that residential car park and your family live there and do have primacy of contract.

    Do your family/or friend being visited, actually OWN or rent the flat?

    What does their lease or tenancy agreement say (if anything) about parking, or permits, or the right to use communal areas including parking spaces, and any charge for parking, and do they have a marked/allocated bay or is it first come first served?

    If nothing about parking is in the agreement, then what does the lease/tenancy agreement (please tell us if they OWN the flat) say about the Managing Agent or Landlord/Freeholder, having the right to introduce 'regulations' for the use of the estate?

    Let's see the wording exactly, please, unless you can't get the lease right now.

    Are you sure about your timing for this defence? Was the claim dated 12th March?

    Add in some extra wording right at the start of each defence, listing ALL FOUR CLAIM NUMBERS and stating that:

    Due to using a robo-claim automatic claim model with no human checks made regarding facts, evidence or overlap of similar cases whatsoever, this Claimant has, negligently and unreasonably, filed four separate claims about precisely the same matters, same facts, same vehicle, same car park, just different dates. If the court believes the claimant has set out a clear cause of action leading to a potential claim in law against this Defendant, in order to spare court resources and costs and under the doctrine of res judicata, the Defendant respectfully asks that there be only one hearing, to deal with all four repeated claims. Thus, the Defendant requests the cases are combined under Civil Procedure Rules 3.1(2)(g) and 3.1(2)(h) either by the CCBC putting the matter before a Judge in Northampton before/at the point of Allocation to track, or once allocated, by Order of the Defendant's local court Judge when issuing Directions.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 13-04-2018 at 4:37 PM.
    • GolfR12
    • By GolfR12 13th Apr 18, 6:15 PM
    • 67 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    GolfR12
    Coupon-mad many thanks for your help and guidance. I really do appreciate it.

    In addition to the above, do I mention the particulars of my case i.e. did not receive any of the previous letters due to living away from home for a while, residential home car park in which you require an electronic fob or access granted by a resident to enter etc?

    I will begin drafting my response now and will upload it in the thread once done.

    Thank you once again.
    • GolfR12
    • By GolfR12 13th Apr 18, 6:27 PM
    • 67 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    GolfR12
    Coupon-mad

    Also I do not have access to the terms of the lease agreement as I am unsure if the person who was visited still resides in the same building.

    With regards to the timing, the issue date was 12th March 2018. Does this mean i have until 4pm on 16th April 2018 to respond?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 13th Apr 18, 6:31 PM
    • 11,362 Posts
    • 11,889 Thanks
    KeithP
    With regards to the timing, the issue date was 12th March 2018. Does this mean i have until 4pm on 16th April 2018 to respond?
    Originally posted by GolfR12
    Answered in post #8.
    .
    • GolfR12
    • By GolfR12 13th Apr 18, 7:36 PM
    • 67 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    GolfR12
    I will post my draft defence below. A few points to note:

    1) I am unsure if the resident who lived at the address is still there; therefore, have no access to a lease/tenancy agreement

    2) I am unsure if the resident owned or rented the place.

    3) Would I need to be more specific regarding the particulars of my case detailed in post #1
    • GolfR12
    • By GolfR12 13th Apr 18, 7:38 PM
    • 67 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    GolfR12
    Due to using a robo-claim automatic claim model with no human checks made regarding facts, evidence or overlap of similar cases whatsoever, this Claimant has, negligently and unreasonably, filed four separate claims about precisely the same matters, same facts, same vehicle, same car park, just different dates. If the court believes the claimant has set out a clear cause of action leading to a potential claim in law against this Defendant, in order to spare court resources and costs and under the doctrine of res judicata, the Defendant respectfully asks that there be only one hearing, to deal with all four repeated claims. Thus, the Defendant requests the cases are combined under Civil Procedure Rules 3.1(2)(g) and 3.1(2)(h) either by the CCBC putting the matter before a Judge in Northampton before/at the point of Allocation to track, or once allocated, by Order of the Defendant's local court Judge when issuing Directions.

    DEFENCE

    Preliminary

    1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

    2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.

    Background

    3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with [provider] with [number] of named drivers permitted to use it.

    4. It is admitted that on [dates] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]

    5. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
    5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
    5.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
    5.2.1. there was a relevant obligation either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
    5.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
    It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

    5.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

    Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

    6. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.

    7. The Defendant avers that the operator!!!8217;s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

    7. Accordingly it is denied that:
    7.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
    7.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
    7.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

    Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clearly parking terms

    8. In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
    8.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
    8.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
    8.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
    8.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
    8.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.

    10. The defendant was completely unaware that the site was being enforced by any restrictive terms. The Defendant parked legitimately in one of many unallocated visitor bays, used without penalty or charge by various visitors at the site. The residents and the Defendant shared the legitimate expectation of a continuing right of way and unfettered right to use the demised parking bays for visitors with no charge.

    11. The Defendant has visited the resident regularly and has always enjoyed the right to park in the visitor spaces. Since there has been no variation of the residents' agreements, a Managing Agent cannot impose this charging regime via an onerous back door method of 'signs and permits' with charges imposed where parking was free.
    11.2. The Claimant cannot be heard to point to their sparse/unlit signs, as if the Defendant should have known about some sort of purported 'contract'; they could have put up huge billboards with neon lights and still those terms cannot affect and override the primacy of contract of leaseholders in possession.

    12. The Claimants present a significantly detrimental material change and provide no service that is for the comfort and convenience of the visitors; indeed the industry is made up of rogue operators whose modus operandi is to issue predatory, unfair tickets, then sue people under the excuse of the completely different Beavis case. On 2nd February 2018 in the second reading debate about private parking firms, the House of Commons unanimously concluded: ''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''.

    13.1. For the avoidance of doubt, the Defendant has entered into no contract with any parking firm.

    14. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

    15. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

    16. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

    STATEMENT OF TRUTH
    I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Apr 18, 9:08 PM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,472 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    The paragraph I gave you that you plonked at the top, needs to be a numbered paragraph, and to quote all the claim numbers.

    Usual Claimant/Defendant/claim number/court and the word 'DEFENCE' headings are needed at the top, as per all the other examples you see here.

    I didn't see the other part I suggested you add/adapt, in my link above?
    • GolfR12
    • By GolfR12 14th Apr 18, 2:39 AM
    • 67 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    GolfR12
    Thank you. Will add in all the headings and claim numbers.

    Which bit should I have amended and added in from the link? I was unsure of what to include as I will not be able to access the lease agreement.

    Once again I really appreciate your help.
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

429Posts Today

3,537Users online

Martin's Twitter