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
    • snores
    • By snores 5th Jan 19, 1:52 PM
    • 10Posts
    • 3Thanks
    snores
    PCN notices that were replied to
    • #1
    • 5th Jan 19, 1:52 PM
    PCN notices that were replied to 5th Jan 19 at 1:52 PM
    Hi everyone,

    We received a few PCNS early last year regarding alleged contraventions in a retail carpark, they were all from the same parking company but all regarding different dates. We typed out a letter disputing all of the dates, in one letter, as we thought this would be simpler than sending several. I think a few weeks went by and we received a reminder PCN about one of the dates they had previously sent - nothing on the other dates - so we resent the original letter albeit omitting the irrelevant dates. We didn't hear back at all so we put it all to the back of our minds assuming it had all been quashed.

    We were wrong.

    Fast forward to December and we received an MCOL I think it's called, about the parking company taking us to court. We hadn't received anything prior to this. We've acknowledged receipt and stated our intention to defend.

    Having gone back to work after the Xmas break, I asked my partner to reprint a copy of the letter we sent in the first instance all those months ago - we wanted to use it as a small part of our defence. Now here's where we've realised that my partners work computer was upgraded with a better model sometime last year - after all the letters were sent from our side. Where we thought it had been saved to the P drive, it was apparently not and probably instead saved on the desktop. My partner is now in correspondence with the IT dept trying to see if this original PC can be tracked down (it's the NHS so.... )

    Will this be an issue to the judge if we can't provide the original letter(s) we sent to the parking company? It's not the biggest portion of our defence but I'm worried that it makes us seem incompetent?

    Thanking you all in advance
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 5th Jan 19, 2:39 PM
    • 21,040 Posts
    • 26,443 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 5th Jan 19, 2:39 PM
    • #2
    • 5th Jan 19, 2:39 PM
    your WS will be a part of your evidence which a judge would listen to, but only the judge can decide how much creedence can be given to what you are saying


    and in any case, send the PPC a free SAR to their DPO by using GDPR and get all the data and docs they have on you, including the pcn and any appeals you made, do this asap, this weekend


    ie:- if you get what you need using a SAR, you may not need the IT departments help
    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
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 5th Jan 19, 3:27 PM
    • 12,105 Posts
    • 12,841 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #3
    • 5th Jan 19, 3:27 PM
    • #3
    • 5th Jan 19, 3:27 PM
    Fast forward to December and we received an MCOL I think it's called, about the parking company taking us to court. We hadn't received anything prior to this. We've acknowledged receipt and stated our intention to defend.
    Originally posted by snores
    Sounds like you have received a Claim Form.

    Was this sent from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?

    What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

    When did you do the Acknowledgement of Service?
    .
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 5th Jan 19, 3:37 PM
    • 11,492 Posts
    • 11,584 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #4
    • 5th Jan 19, 3:37 PM
    • #4
    • 5th Jan 19, 3:37 PM
    It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business.

    Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers.

    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

    The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

    Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

    All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • snores
    • By snores 8th Jan 19, 9:27 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    snores
    • #5
    • 8th Jan 19, 9:27 PM
    • #5
    • 8th Jan 19, 9:27 PM
    Hi,
    thanks for this - we will do the SAR as a matter of urgency this week.

    The parking company in question is ES Parking - we've checked on their website and they haven't listed a DPO. Can we just email any email listed on their website or should we dig for a DPO?
    • snores
    • By snores 8th Jan 19, 9:31 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    snores
    • #6
    • 8th Jan 19, 9:31 PM
    • #6
    • 8th Jan 19, 9:31 PM
    Sounds like you have received a Claim Form.

    Was this sent from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?

    What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

    When did you do the Acknowledgement of Service?
    Originally posted by KeithP
    Hi thank you for replying.

    Sorry yes it is a claim form - I didn't have it to hand when I made my original post so struggled to think what it was called. It was sent from the Count Court Business Centre in Northampton, yes. The issue date is 10/12/18 - we replied with an AOS on the 28th so have until the 14/1/19 to submit a defence so any help is greatly appreciated. We have written up a first draft defence which I will post in a separate post below - please critique as needed. Thank you in advance!
    • snores
    • By snores 8th Jan 19, 9:33 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    snores
    • #7
    • 8th Jan 19, 9:33 PM
    • #7
    • 8th Jan 19, 9:33 PM
    Hi,
    thanks for this - we will do the SAR as a matter of urgency this week.

    The parking company in question is ES Parking - we've checked on their website and they haven't listed a DPO. Can we just email any email listed on their website or should we dig for a DPO?
    Originally posted by snores
    Sorry only just figured out how to quote posts - this was in reply to RedX
    • snores
    • By snores 8th Jan 19, 9:36 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    snores
    • #8
    • 8th Jan 19, 9:36 PM
    • #8
    • 8th Jan 19, 9:36 PM
    Hi all this is a first draft of our defence; we have taken aspects from other posts on here and reformulated it into something relevant to us.

    START

    Statement of Defence: Claim No. XXXXXXXX; Date: xx/xx/2018

    It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the
    vehicle in question.

    However the Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant
    on the following grounds:-
    (1) The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle on the dates in
    question.
    (2)The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being
    complied with.
    a) Notwithstanding that the Claimant claims no right to pursue the Defendant as the registered keeper under PoFA, the Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if it cannot identify the driver.
    b) The keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of any charges and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time and
    with mandatory wording
    c) The claimant has no right to assert that the defendant is liable based on ‘reasonable assumption’. PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, 'There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort' (2015).


    3. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear
    offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landholder. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver
    who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.
    4. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information. The claim form neither contains a supposed parking charge notice number, no alleged contravention specifics (time or particulars regarding supposed contractual criteria) nor photographs.
    5. The claimant’s legal representative submitted an erroneous N1SDT claim form; the dates regarding the alleged parking breach states the date 21/5/18 once and the date 23/5/18 five times. Previous parking charge notices were issued on dates different to these. The claim being brought against the defendant is different to those dates the parking charge notices were originally issued on. This further highlights the lack of due diligence undertaken by the Claimant and their representative.
    6. The defendant contacted the claimant in the first instance (xxxx) and collectively contested the alleged breaches to terms of parking via their internal appeals process. No acknowledgement was received, neither to contest nor reject the defendants appeal. The claimants then followed up in XXXX referencing only one of the prior alleged parking breaches. As this offence had already previously been included in the defendant’s initial appeal, the defendants wrote to the claimants once again to state that this alleged parking offence had been previously addressed in the first instance and was contested on the same grounds as the other alleged offences. No acknowledgement was received yet again, neither to contest nor reject the defendants appeal. The defendant rejects any claim by the claimant that they issued a response to the internal appeal issue by the claimant on the grounds that:
    (a) No reply was ever received after submitting a collective appeal regarding all alleged parking offences brought to the defendant’s attention
    (b) The claimant failed to address the correspondence a second time when questioned regarding the status of the appeal lodged, and further failed to respond regarding the second appeal
    (c) Denied the defendant the opportunity to further appeal to the IPC to which the claimant is a member of, therefore preventing the defendant to avoid the prospect of the matter escalating to a county court or a county court judgement.
    The defendant puts the claimant to strict proof that it issued a response to either of the aforementioned letters of appeal.

    7. Inadequate signs incapable of contractually binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (a) printed in very small font
    (b) poorly illuminated
    (c) inconspicuous
    (d) unclear with regards to the terms not being transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the UTCCRs (as applicable at the time)
    Therefore did not meet the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice nor the POFA 2012 Schedule 4. The Claimant was a member of the IPC during the dates in question and committed to follow their requirements. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay any charge, or any additional fees if unpaid in 28 days.

    8. As per point 7, the claimant has not made it clear that they use an ANPR system for parking. Furthermore ANPR systems reliability has been brought into question on numerous occasions as it lacks a robust method of accurately recording the duration of a vehicle’s stay - especially when related to the number of instances a vehicle enters and leaves the same site within the same 24 hour period.

    9. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landholder. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landholder to ES Parking Services Ltd.
    a) ES Parking Services Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land
    b) Absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus standi to bring this case.

    10. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.

    11. The amount is a penalty, and the penalty rule is still engaged, so can be clearly distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic
    contract disputes for the following reasons:-
    a) The Claimant has no commercial justification
    b) The Claimant did not follow the IPC Code of Practice
    c) The Claimant is not the landholder and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
    d) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.
    e) The Court of Appeal for the Beavis case made a clear reference to the fact that their decision was NOT relevant to pay-per-hour type car parks.

    12. The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover
    additional charges. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred.

    13. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landholder can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landholder themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

    14. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

    15. Because the Particulars of Claim are so sparse (a breach of inter alia CPR Rule 16.4) it is difficult for the Defendant (a litigant in person) to file a proper defence. For the avoidance of doubt, should this matter proceed then the Defendant puts the Claimant to full proof of every aspect of its claim. He must also, given the lack of particularisation of the claim, reserve the right to raise further points in his defence, should the Claimant further particularise its claim (for instance, in any witness evidence).
    Therefore I ask the court to respectfully strike out this claim with immediate effect.

    I believe that the facts stated in this Statement of defence,
    xx/xx/2018 are true.


    END
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 8th Jan 19, 9:36 PM
    • 12,105 Posts
    • 12,841 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #9
    • 8th Jan 19, 9:36 PM
    • #9
    • 8th Jan 19, 9:36 PM
    Sorry yes it is a claim form - I didn't have it to hand when I made my original post so struggled to think what it was called. It was sent from the Count Court Business Centre in Northampton, yes. The issue date is 10/12/18 - we replied with an AOS on the 28th so have until the 14/1/19 to submit a defence so any help is greatly appreciated.
    Originally posted by snores
    Yes, those dates are fine, but there may be something useful here...


    With a Claim Issue Date of 10th December, and the Acknowledgement of Service done in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 14th January 2019 to file your Defence.

    Please don't leave it to the very last minute.


    When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:
    1. Print your Defence.
    2. Sign it and date it.
    3. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
    4. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
    5. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
    6. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
    7. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
    8. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Jan 19, 9:52 PM
    • 65,747 Posts
    • 78,256 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Hi,
    thanks for this - we will do the SAR as a matter of urgency this week.

    The parking company in question is ES Parking - we've checked on their website and they haven't listed a DPO. Can we just email any email listed on their website or should we dig for a DPO?
    Originally posted by snores
    Odd, I just found the email in 20 seconds.

    The first Google search I tried: 'ES Parking Privacy' took me here:

    https://www.espel.uk/anpr-privacy/

    Do the SAR right now, not 'this week'! You want to see their hand.
    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
    • snores
    • By snores 9th Jan 19, 9:37 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    snores
    your WS will be a part of your evidence which a judge would listen to, but only the judge can decide how much creedence can be given to what you are saying


    and in any case, send the PPC a free SAR to their DPO by using GDPR and get all the data and docs they have on you, including the pcn and any appeals you made, do this asap, this weekend


    ie:- if you get what you need using a SAR, you may not need the IT departments help
    Originally posted by Redx
    Odd, I just found the email in 20 seconds.

    The first Google search I tried: 'ES Parking Privacy' took me here:

    Do the SAR right now, not 'this week'! You want to see their hand.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad

    Hi thanks so much for replying - I sent the SAR today and received a reply back.

    Basically the DPO is asking for a copy of my vehicles V5 logbook to show evidence that I am the registered keeper - is this excessive or should I send a copy?
    • snores
    • By snores 9th Jan 19, 9:43 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    snores
    Yes, those dates are fine, but there may be something useful here...


    With a Claim Issue Date of 10th December, and the Acknowledgement of Service done in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 14th January 2019 to file your Defence.

    Please don't leave it to the very last minute.


    When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:
    1. Print your Defence.
    2. Sign it and date it.
    3. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
    4. Send that pdf as an email attachment to ]
    5. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
    6. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
    7. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
    8. Wait for your
    Originally posted by KeithP
    Hi thanks so much for replying - we have written a first draft of our Defence which I have posted in the thread a post above. Would anyone have time to give it a skim proofread or am I overstepping a bit there..
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Jan 19, 9:52 PM
    • 65,747 Posts
    • 78,256 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    the DPO is asking for a copy of my vehicles V5 logbook to show evidence that I am the registered keeper - is this excessive or should I send a copy?
    That should have been uploaded with your SAR request. A data subject must show ID, so that is fine.
    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
    • snores
    • By snores 9th Jan 19, 10:02 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    snores
    That should have been uploaded with your SAR request. A data subject must show ID, so that is fine.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Thank you, I obviously didn't fully compute the instructions of how to send an SAR :/

    I'll be sending an SAR to the DVLA tomorrow, I'll also send a copy of the logbook as ID Just to be on the safe side
    • snores
    • By snores 11th Jan 19, 8:46 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    snores
    Just a quick update:

    Both SARs sent - one to PPC and one to DVLA.

    We'll be submitting our defence tomorrow so I thought I would bump this thread in the hopes that someone could possibly look over our draft defence below, particularly points 4-8. I appreciate that you guys must see these daily and are probably fed up of proof reading the same things, but seriously, any pointers would be greatly welcomed.


    Statement of Defence: Claim No. XXXXXXXX; Date: xx/xx/2018

    It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the
    vehicle in question.

    However the Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant
    on the following grounds:-

    (1) The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle on the dates in
    question.

    (2)The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being
    complied with.
    a) Notwithstanding that the Claimant claims no right to pursue the Defendant as the registered keeper under PoFA, the Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if it cannot identify the driver.
    b) The keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of any charges and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time and
    with mandatory wording
    c) The claimant has no right to assert that the defendant is liable based on ‘reasonable assumption’. PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, 'There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort' (2015).


    3. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear
    offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landholder. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver
    who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

    4. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information. The claim form neither contains a supposed parking charge notice number, no alleged contravention specifics (time or particulars regarding supposed contractual criteria) nor photographs.

    5. The claimant’s legal representative submitted an erroneous N1SDT claim form; the dates regarding the alleged parking breach states the date 21/5/18 once and the date 23/5/18 five times. Previous parking charge notices were issued on dates different to these. The claim being brought against the defendant is different to those dates the parking charge notices were originally issued on. This further highlights the lack of due diligence undertaken by the Claimant and their representative.

    6. The defendant contacted the claimant in the first instance (xxxx) and collectively contested the alleged breaches to terms of parking via their internal appeals process. No acknowledgement was received, neither to contest nor reject the defendants appeal. The claimants then followed up in XXXX referencing only one of the prior alleged parking breaches. As this offence had already previously been included in the defendant’s initial appeal, the defendants wrote to the claimants once again to state that this alleged parking offence had been previously addressed in the first instance and was contested on the same grounds as the other alleged offences. No acknowledgement was received yet again, neither to contest nor reject the defendants appeal. The defendant rejects any claim by the claimant that they issued a response to the internal appeal issue by the claimant on the grounds that:
    (a) No reply was ever received after submitting a collective appeal regarding all alleged parking offences brought to the defendant’s attention
    (b) The claimant failed to address the correspondence a second time when questioned regarding the status of the appeal lodged, and further failed to respond regarding the second appeal
    (c) Denied the defendant the opportunity to further appeal to the IPC to which the claimant is a member of, therefore preventing the defendant to avoid the prospect of the matter escalating to a county court or a county court judgement.
    The defendant puts the claimant to strict proof that it issued a response to either of the aforementioned letters of appeal.

    7. Inadequate signs incapable of contractually binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (a) printed in very small font
    (b) poorly illuminated
    (c) inconspicuous
    (d) unclear with regards to the terms not being transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the UTCCRs (as applicable at the time)
    Therefore did not meet the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice nor the POFA 2012 Schedule 4. The Claimant was a member of the IPC during the dates in question and committed to follow their requirements. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay any charge, or any additional fees if unpaid in 28 days.

    8. As per point 7, the claimant has not made it clear that they use an ANPR system for parking. Furthermore ANPR systems reliability has been brought into question on numerous occasions as it lacks a robust method of accurately recording the duration of a vehicle’s stay - especially when related to the number of instances a vehicle enters and leaves the same site within the same 24 hour period.

    9. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landholder. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landholder to ES Parking Services Ltd.
    a) ES Parking Services Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land
    b) Absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus standi to bring this case.

    10. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.

    11. The amount is a penalty, and the penalty rule is still engaged, so can be clearly distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic
    contract disputes for the following reasons:-
    a) The Claimant has no commercial justification
    b) The Claimant did not follow the IPC Code of Practice
    c) The Claimant is not the landholder and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
    d) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.
    e) The Court of Appeal for the Beavis case made a clear reference to the fact that their decision was NOT relevant to pay-per-hour type car parks.

    12. The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover
    additional charges. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred.

    13. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landholder can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landholder themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

    14. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

    15. Because the Particulars of Claim are so sparse (a breach of inter alia CPR Rule 16.4) it is difficult for the Defendant (a litigant in person) to file a proper defence. For the avoidance of doubt, should this matter proceed then the Defendant puts the Claimant to full proof of every aspect of its claim. He must also, given the lack of particularisation of the claim, reserve the right to raise further points in his defence, should the Claimant further particularise its claim (for instance, in any witness evidence).
    Therefore I ask the court to respectfully strike out this claim with immediate effect.

    I believe that the facts stated in this Statement of defence,
    xx/xx/2018 are true.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jan 19, 2:30 AM
    • 65,747 Posts
    • 78,256 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Statement of Defence:
    Nope, it's DEFENCE, and that's a really long one, not concise at all.

    Look instead at bargepole's templates in the NEWBIES thread & use one.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 14-01-2019 at 1:48 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
    • snores
    • By snores 13th Jan 19, 8:47 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    snores
    Nope, it's DEFENCE, and that;s a really long one, not concise at all.

    Look instead at bargepole's templates in the NEWBIES thread & use one.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Thanks for the advice, we're going to use bargepoles defence on signs as the defence now.

    Quick question regarding this statment:

    "8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 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"


    If there were multiple parking charges issued would this £100 sum, mentioned above increase to the total of parking charges issued? I.e. if 5 notices were issued, with each charge carrying a £100 penalty, then should I change the figure to £500 or leave it at £100?

    Sorry if this seems like a daft or wordy question
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Jan 19, 1:50 AM
    • 65,747 Posts
    • 78,256 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Not daft at all, in fact I suggested to a poster that this point is expanded upon:

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=75304578#post75304578

    You can use that wording - it was designed for a multi ticket case as you can see, similar to your own - and adapt the £sum figures to suit.

    Strike HARD about this scam!
    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
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

249Posts Today

2,036Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • As normal I am signing off twitter for the weekend - to spend time with mini and Mrs MSE. Hope you have a wonderfu? https://t.co/FG3sRfkIgA

  • RT @LauraFrancis9: Top crew! We may film in the freeeeeeeezing cold every week, but this bunch make it fun. (And huge thanks as always to @?

  • Turns out this is all Google served. We've been in touch and it's shutting it down which should cut it on many webs? https://t.co/8OYeMjEu4n

  • Follow Martin