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
    • Laireyhutch
    • By Laireyhutch 22nd Dec 18, 10:13 PM
    • 26Posts
    • 9Thanks
    Laireyhutch
    County court letter vcs! Please help
    • #1
    • 22nd Dec 18, 10:13 PM
    County court letter vcs! Please help 22nd Dec 18 at 10:13 PM
    So back in July I parked in a private car park and duly paid for my ticket. I popped along to check on a vulnerable client and returned to my car only to find a (what I thought was) parking ticket! I checked my ticket but when I closed my car door it had slipped under the coloured part of my windscreen so I checked the ticket and did as instructed to check the fine etc etc! I know I know I stated I was the driver even though the car is in my fellas name! So I fully expected it to be Ok, silly me! So I answer the claim and explain.......no joy! So I appeal still nothing! In October I get a letter before letter before ccc. I am now worried I check on here and see that it's a scare tactic! So I reply by both email and post but I receive no further correspondence at all, all good I think! Until today when I receive a letter from the county court! Please can anyone help with my next steps?? I'm petrified! I suffer with my mental health and this isn't helping!
Page 2
    • Laireyhutch
    • By Laireyhutch 24th Dec 18, 12:01 AM
    • 26 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Laireyhutch
    Was originally a 60 pounds fine I think and then was increased. I only have my letter before claim and the court one
    • Redx
    • By Redx 24th Dec 18, 12:03 AM
    • 21,798 Posts
    • 27,388 Thanks
    Redx
    Was originally a 60 pounds fine I think and then was increased. I only have my letter before claim and the court one
    Originally posted by Laireyhutch
    I do not believe that to be true

    more likely to be a £100 pcn and reduced to £60 for an early payment, usually within 14 days

    send the SAR by email and get the rest of the docs etc, asap

    the LBC should tell you what the original charge was plus the additional fees etc
    Last edited by Redx; 22-01-2019 at 12:16 AM.
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Laireyhutch
    • By Laireyhutch 24th Dec 18, 12:05 AM
    • 26 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Laireyhutch
    I will do. Will email it off tomorrow. Thanks
    • Laireyhutch
    • By Laireyhutch 24th Dec 18, 12:45 AM
    • 26 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Laireyhutch
    It's sent!
    • Laireyhutch
    • By Laireyhutch 5th Jan 19, 10:18 PM
    • 26 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Laireyhutch
    Nothing from the SAR email. Should I start my defence without it???
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 5th Jan 19, 10:25 PM
    • 13,589 Posts
    • 14,790 Thanks
    KeithP
    The deadline for filing your Defence must not be missed.

    Start work on it as soon as possible.

    The information returned as a result of your SAR will be most useful at Witness Statement and evidence time - some months down the road.
    .
    • Laireyhutch
    • By Laireyhutch 9th Jan 19, 6:53 AM
    • 26 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Laireyhutch
    I have no idea where to start!
    • Le_Kirk
    • By Le_Kirk 9th Jan 19, 10:06 AM
    • 4,310 Posts
    • 3,442 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    I have no idea where to start!
    Originally posted by Laireyhutch
    Start at the NEWBIE section, post # 2 and read some defences written by Bargepole. Your defence needs to answer all/any of the points raised in the POC sent to you by the claimant.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 9th Jan 19, 2:20 PM
    • 13,589 Posts
    • 14,790 Thanks
    KeithP
    I have no idea where to start!
    Originally posted by Laireyhutch
    It's now over two weeks since Redx directed you towards post #2 of the NEWBIES thread.

    The very next day I gave you a link to that thread - twice, in fact.

    And now you are telling us you don't know where to start. Crazy!!

    The filing date for your Defence is now less than two weeks away.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Jan 19, 12:26 AM
    • 68,527 Posts
    • 80,756 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I have no idea where to start!
    Originally posted by Laireyhutch
    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=75293205#post75293205

    Crack on, this is not as hard as you are making it, honestly!
    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
    • Laireyhutch
    • By Laireyhutch 13th Jan 19, 10:01 AM
    • 26 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Laireyhutch
    1.The Particulars of Claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5.

    1.1 The claim particulars fail to specify how the terms of parking were breached and fail to fulfil CPR Part 16.4 by not including a statement of the facts on which the claimant relies, only referring to parking charges incurred with no further description; it fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence; are not clear and concise as is required by CPR Part 16.4 1(a).

    1.2 The Claimant and their solicitor are known to be a serial litigants and issuer of speculative claims, using “template” particulars of claim, with no due diligence. Research indicated they are the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

    1.3 1.1 In C3GF84Y2 (Mason, Plymouth County Court) [2016] the judge struck out the claim brought by KBT Cornwall Ltd as Gladstones Solicitors had not submitted proper Particulars of Claim, and similar reasons were cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

    1.4 On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failed to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the claim was struck out.

    1.5 There are other similar examples which could be produced.

    2 The Defendant appealed the Parking Charge Notice on the 20/07/2018 explaining what had happened and included a copy of the ticket displayed on the day providing the Claimant with clear evidence that the defendant acted in good faith and made all reasonable endeavours to comply with the terms and condition (“T&C”) - as far as they were understood.

    2.1 This was an opportunity for the Claimant to act reasonably and cancel the charge.

    2.2 The appeal was rejected on the 25/07/2018 and the Defendant subsequently appealed to the Independent Adjudicator on 07/08/2018 which was also dismissed.

    3 The Defendant requests the court strike out the claim for want of a cause of action and disregard of pre-court protocol.

    3.1 Alternatively, the Defendant asks that court makes an order requiring the Claimant to file compliant Particulars, to include at least the following;
    a) An explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
    b) A copy of any contract it is alleged was entered into and how (e.g. copies of signage)
    c) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with documents they rely on in having standing to bring this claim
    d) If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed and calculated
    e) If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed.

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

    Background
    4 The Defendant is the driver in question at the time of the alleged incident, and fully acknowledged the incident fully thinking that this was a simple misunderstanding

    5 The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons:

    5.1 The Defendant paid and displayed a ticket so all details could be seen. The ticket was made of very flimsy paper, and was, to the full knowledge of the Defendant at the time, in place the right way up when the car was locked and left parked. The Defendant has no knowledge of the point at which the ticket moved out of sight or why, but made all reasonable endeavours, and complied by conduct.

    5.2 The Defendant cannot be responsible for the possibility that:
    a) A gust of wind may have later moved the flimsy paper from sight, despite the windows & doors being locked.
    b) The employee of the Claimant may have caused the ticket to move from sight, perhaps accidentally when leaning across the car or pushing between vehicles. No suggestion of foul play is intended.
    c) A passer-by may have leaned on the car, when squeezing between the small bays to get to their own vehicle.

    5.3 None of the above scenarios are within a driver's control (the Defendant was by that time, absent from the location) and it is evident that someone else – or a factor outside anyone's control – was to blame. This appears to have been a case of casus fortuitus "chance occurrence, unavoidable accident", which is a doctrine that essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties renders the contract frustrated.

    5.4 Notwithstanding the above, the flimsiness of the ticket certainly played its part, and that is within the control of the Claimant, who must be well aware of the problem, which has become known as ''fluttering tickets''. Because they profit from drivers' misfortune caused by their own tickets' inability to withstand British weather, it is averred that this Claimant wilfully failed to address this issue (e.g. by adding sticky backing to the ticket, allowing it to be fixed in place). Several similar court cases have been previously dismissed on the basis that it is deemed by the judge to be the responsibility of the parking company to provide sticky backed tickets (e.g. C8GF30W7 Link Parking v Mr H. 14/11/2016 Port Talbot)

    5.5 The Claimant does not dispute that the Defendant purchased a ticket, that it gave a licence to park for the time allowed.

    5.6 The Court is invited to consider the fairness of the position in this case, giving due consideration to the flimsiness of the piece of paper provided, which appears to cause significant imbalance in the rights of a consumer, to their detriment, and the Defendant relies on Section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act.

    Limited contract
    6 The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract to pay £100 or any sum at all. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read and it is not believed that such terms were proclaimed with the tariffs at the machine. Part E, Schedule 1 of the Code of Practice of the International Parking Community (of which the Claimant is a member), clearly obliges the Claimant to display legible signs in appropriate locations.

    Locus standi
    7 The Claimant has failed to establish its legal right to bring a claim either as the landholder or the agent of the landholder and therefore would have no locus standi to bring this case per Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] 1B &S 393, as confirmed by the House of Lords in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd.

    7.1 Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 showed that the Claimant does not have a wider legitimate interest extending beyond the prospect of damages, as their interest is only limited to the recovery of compensation for the alleged breach of contract, and no commercial interest has engaged as to the control of parking as the Defendant had paid for a licence to park.

    No advertising consent for signage
    8 The Claimant is not entitled to rely on an illegal or immoral act in order to profit from it, pursuant to the doctrine ex dolo malo non oritur actio. In this matter, the Claimant does not have advertisement consent in relation to its parking signage on the land in question (which are classed as “advertisements” under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended). This is a criminal offence under Regulation 30 of those Regulations. Accordingly, as a matter of public policy and pursuant to the doctrine, the Claimant should not be allowed to found a cause of action on unlawful signage. The rationale for this is set out in the case of Holman v Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 341 and was reaffirmed in RTA (Business Consultants) Ltd v Bracewell [2015] EWHC 630 (QB) (12 March 2015). The Defendant also relies on Andre Agassi v S Robinson (HM Inspector of Taxes) [2005] EWCA Civ 1507 and ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores [2012] EWCA Civ 1338.

    8.1 In addition, the Claimant is in breach of various statutory and regulatory provisions set out in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (Regulation 3 – a breach of which is an offence under Regulation 5), the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Sections 62 and 68 and Schedule 2) and the Consumer Contract (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (Regulation 13). Again, the court should not lend its aid to the Claimant in founding a claim based on its unlawful and/or immoral conduct.

    Claimant is seeking a penalty and inflated costs
    9 The Claimant seeks £160 which is an extravagant and unconscionable penalty, and therefore unenforceable particularly because the Defendant has shown a valid ticket was purchased and the Claimant has suffered no loss, and because any breach of contract (which, for the avoidance of doubt, is denied) was de minimis.

    9.1 The Claimant is under a duty to mitigate its loss. It failed to do so by ignoring the information available from the Defendant having supplied a valid ticket for the time of the alleged incident.

    9.2 £60 of the £160 ‘parking charge’ (for which liability is denied) the Claimant has untruthfully presented as contractual charges, which amounts to double charging, which the PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 specifically disallows. Any term allowing for the Claimant to pursue such additional charges must be void for uncertainty. In any event, such charges must be covered by the addition of the discounted element of the charge after a driver has failed to pay within 14 days (£40).

    9.3 There is no possible commercial justification for the Claimant to found an action based on such a trivial error. The Beavis v ParkingEye [2015] Judges at the Court of Appeal stated that in that case there was a commercial justification as it was free car park and the Claimant needed to prevent overstays of the free 2 hour stay. Whereas in this case the car park is a Pay and Display car park where revenue is earned from the purchase of tickets for an agreed period of time.

    9.4 The Claimant has claimed a £50 legal representative’s cost on the claim form, despite being well aware that CPR 27.14 does not permit such charges to be recovered in the Small Claims Court. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the charges have not been invoiced and/or paid and that due to the sparse particulars the £50 claimed for filing the claim has not been incurred either. This appears to be an attempt at double recovery as a way to inflate the value of the claim. In the alternative, the Claimant is put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred.

    9.5 The £50 solicitor cost was disputed in the test case of ParkingEye v Beavis and Wardley. HHJ Moloney refused to award the £50. His award was; “JUDGMENT FOR CLAIMANT FOR £85 PLUS ISSUE COSTS”.. The £50 was also struck out by DJ Sparrow on 19 August 2015 in ParkingEye v Mrs S, claim number B9FC508F.

    9.6 The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever

    10 The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim for the above grounds.


    I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.
    • Laireyhutch
    • By Laireyhutch 13th Jan 19, 11:28 AM
    • 26 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Laireyhutch
    I really appreciate all the help and I'm trying my best but depreciating posts aren't really helpful
    • Laireyhutch
    • By Laireyhutch 13th Jan 19, 11:29 AM
    • 26 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Laireyhutch
    My defence for critique x thank you
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Jan 19, 5:47 PM
    • 68,527 Posts
    • 80,756 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    OK that is far too long and repetitive and based on an old and bad defence.

    Start again and simply use bargepole's template defence in the NEWBIES thread and add a section about the facts, which is basically everything in your point #5.
    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
    • Laireyhutch
    • By Laireyhutch 13th Jan 19, 11:11 PM
    • 26 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Laireyhutch
    In The County Court
    Claim No: XXXXXXX
    Between
    UKCPS Ltd (Claimant)

    -and-

    XXXXXXX (Defendant)

    ____________
    DEFENCE
    ____________

    1. The Defendant was the driver of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

    2. The facts of the matter are that the Defendant purchased and displayed a ticket valid for the time and date of the alleged offence and is able to provide proof of this with an appropriate ticket. The Defendant paid and displayed a ticket so all details could be seen. The ticket was made of very flimsy paper, and was, to the full knowledge of the Defendant at the time, in place the right way up when the car was locked and left parked. The Defendant has no knowledge of the point at which the ticket moved out of sight or why, but made all reasonable endeavours, and complied by conduct.

    3. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

    4. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

    5. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100.

    6. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

    Statement of Truth:

    I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

    Name
    Signature
    Date



    Better??
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Jan 19, 12:53 AM
    • 68,527 Posts
    • 80,756 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Great, albeit in this case I would also add the usual defence point about the claimant not being the landowner/having standing. You will find that in the other template defences.
    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
    • Laireyhutch
    • By Laireyhutch 14th Jan 19, 12:58 AM
    • 26 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Laireyhutch
    Is that not point#4?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Jan 19, 1:06 AM
    • 68,527 Posts
    • 80,756 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Aw, yes it is indeed! Sorry, skim-reading as per usual.

    But you've definitely chopped something out of bargepole's template. I think it's signage, now I've looked again at this draft.

    I'd add a point as #4, and move the rest down, that:

    4. Even if the court is minded to think that a contract existed and was not frustrated by the flimsiness of the ticket, the Defendant avers that he (she?) did not enter into any contract over and above the tariff paid because the instructions read at the Pay and Display machine did not mention any penalty, merely a tariff list. At no point was the Defendant afforded the opportunity to learn - let alone agree, and he would not have done - that the penalty for the Claimant's own ticket flipping over, due to it being unfit for purpose, was £100.
    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
    • Laireyhutch
    • By Laireyhutch 18th Jan 19, 5:33 PM
    • 26 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Laireyhutch
    Thanks x sent!
    • Laireyhutch
    • By Laireyhutch 21st Jan 19, 11:56 PM
    • 26 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Laireyhutch
    Does the court acknowledge your email?? I've managed to lock myself out of the government gateway so can't check that my case is marked as defended??
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

4,012Posts Today

5,380Users online

Martin's Twitter