County Court letter for unpaid UKPC parking tickets

So, having received the Court Claim document first that had almost no details - we have now received the more detailed Particulars of Claim document.

This shows that they are actually pursuing us for 4 different contraventions (rather than 2, as we first thought)! 2 of them are from 2016 and 2 are from 2017! And one of the ones from 2016 was in the parking premises of a company that is no longer operating there... don't know if that makes any difference?

I tried to upload some redacted images of this document, but it won't allow me to share links as a new user. However, the details I am querying are:

• The defendant has admitted that they were the driver of the vehicle...etc. etc. and if the claimant cannot identify the driver then they have the right to bring this claim against the registered keeper. Is this really right? :-(
• 1st contravention says I was in a "customer only" space... but it was after customer times had closed. Is this relevant?
• 2nd contravention says that the vehicle was parked in a "permit holder parking space" without clearly displaying a valid permit. It was dark when we parked and the entire lot was empty?
• 3rd contravention says we parked for longer than the alloted time. But again, it was after working hours and the lot was empty?
• 4th contravention states we parked in a customer only bay - but again, it was after customer hours.

Each contravention is listed as being between £150-£200 and then costs on top of it all... which seems very steep too.

Please could someone advise whether I need to discuss any of these details in my defence letter? I have written a draft based on the advice in the Newbies Thread (but I'm worried it is too generic and that I need to add more details pertinent to my claim/defence).

The draft response is as follows:
"Re: Claim Number [INSERT CLAIM NUMBER]

I am [INSERT NAME], the defendant in this matter and am the registered keeper of vehicle [INSERT VRN]. I appeal and dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability for the entirety of this claim.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn, nor was there an agreed contract. Your signage terms fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence of the parking charge (especially prudent in this case, as it was after dark and the signage was unlit), as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, which is fully distinguished.

Should you fail to cancel this Claim, I require with your rejection letter, all images taken of this vehicle & the signs at the location that day at the time the charge was issued. Do not withhold any images or data later relied on for POPLA/court.

Please also provide information as to how you obtained both my previous and current postal addresses, as this would have most likely been done by violating my data protection rights - only one of these addresses should have been available to you via my car registration. Posting some letters to one address and then the other made it very difficult to ascertain clarity of the claim(s), timeline, and communication.

Firms of your ilk were unanimously condemned in 2018 as operating an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18). The BPA & IPC were heavily criticised too; hardly surprising for an industry where so-called AOS members admit to letting victims 'futilely go through the motions' of appeal and say on camera 'we make it up sometimes' (BBC Watchdog).

I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner, as well as complaining in writing to my MP and ensuring that they are appraised of the debate where Parliament agreed unanimously: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists...should not have to put up with this''.

In order to resolve the dispute, I attach copies of photos of the signage - so it can be shown that the prominence is poor (especially in low light, as it is unlit) and that the signs do not stipulate [BASED ON FORUM ADVICE GIVEN, INSERT WORDING FROM SIGNS RE: TRESPASS RATHER THAN PARKING]. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of potential trespass (not breach of any contract), such as indicated by the wording of the signage above) a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

I have 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, and I put the Claimant to strict proof that all claimed costs were invoiced and paid.

Due to the length of time, I have little to no recollection of the day(s) in question. It would not be reasonable expect a registered keeper to be able to recall the potential driver(s) of the car so many months later. The burden rests with the Claimant to identify the driver, who is the only party potentially liable in cases where a parking firm is unable to rely upon the POFA.

Formal note:
Service of any rejection letter/POPLA code and/or legal documents by email is expressly disallowed. All responses to me from this point on, must be made by post. Regardless of any MCOL online/email system, service of any court claim must only be made by first class post to the latest address provided by me.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Yours faithfully,
[INSERT NAME AND ADDRESS]
10/08/2018

KeithP wrote: »

That is definitely not the way to respond to a County Court Claim Form.

Have you read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread?

In there you will find comprehensive guidance on how to proceed.

You will also find sample Defences. I guess you haven't even read one other Defence - there are hundreds around here.

What is the Date of Issue on Your Claim Form?

Have you done the Acknowledgement of Service?
That is the first thing to do a the re is a nice pictorial dropbox file telling you exactly how to do that in the NEWBIES post.

Hi Keith,

This reply was based on a defence I found while looking through the very thread that you mention. I'm sorry, it's my first time using a forum and I am finding it somewhat confusing - however, I did read several and this one I used as a template seemed the one most similar to my case.

The date of issue on my original form was the 27th of July and I have already submitted the Acknowledgement of Service (based on the advice further up in my thread).

I tried to add a dropbox file but it won't let me add an email link OR add an image (via hosted URL), so I am struggling to add the photos to my thread. Any help would be appreciated, as currently everything I try gets the error message: "
The following errors occurred with your submission:
Sorry as a new user you are not allowed to post with links. This is done to stop spammers clogging up the site. Please edit your message below to continue."

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

At this point entirely irrelevant who drove. The defendant is the keeper and defends as such.

Apologies - I had been asked that twice specifically by another user in my thread above. SO, I thought it might be important/relevant.