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
    • Dovette
    • By Dovette 3rd Apr 19, 4:08 PM
    • 18Posts
    • 9Thanks
    Dovette
    Lbc
    • #1
    • 3rd Apr 19, 4:08 PM
    Lbc 3rd Apr 19 at 4:08 PM
    Hi. I've been reading and following the advice on this forum re my PCN but now I am getting confused. I received a LBC dated 15/11/18 from xxx so I wrote back on 29/11/18 saying there was insufficent detail of the claim (in accordance with PAP, etc). Xx responded on 18/01/19 (after 30 days) basicaly asking for the money and still not fulfulling the PAP. I responded on 07/02/19 to say that they had failed to respond to my formal request on 29/11/18 for all the documents and information that the PAP and PD require them to provide and that they had breached para 5.2. Xxx responded more fully on 05/03/19 including a reply form but I don't think they have provided everything I asked for. I have also done a SAR to discussed and also emailed xx to restrict processing my data. i have had a response from xXxX today saying that they have authority to process the data and that they would extend the PAP by 30 days to 3 May 2019. I'm not sure why they have extended it as they didnt provide all the info I requested.

    Thread no 2 on the Newbies thread stated "DO RESPOND - but DO NOT use the 'reply forms'. You do not have to declare your finances!". Does the above action I took constitute a reply or do I need to do something else? Or do I just wait for the claim? I am just a bit unsure as to my next steps.

    Any advice would be gratefully received.
    Last edited by Dovette; 09-06-2019 at 8:48 PM. Reason: typo
Page 2
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 10th Jun 19, 12:26 PM
    • 40,488 Posts
    • 24,533 Thanks
    Quentin
    I wasn't sure if I would only get 28 days as I completed the AoS online so would like to submit it within that timeframe just to be sure.
    Originally posted by Dovette
    You do only get 28 days from date of service irrespective of how you submit the AOS

    You can trust Keith to give you the correct information
    • Dovette
    • By Dovette 10th Jun 19, 12:33 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Dovette
    It will be if it's the drivers blue badge and you want to use it in court!
    Originally posted by Quentin
    I wouldn't say it was the driver's blue badge if that was the case.
    • Dovette
    • By Dovette 10th Jun 19, 12:36 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Dovette
    You do only get 28 days from date of service irrespective of how you submit the AOS

    You can trust Keith to give you the correct information
    Originally posted by Quentin
    Keith's advice included the extra 5 days..I had calculated it to be 9 July but seen 28 days on MOL hence wanting to submit within 28 days.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 10th Jun 19, 1:14 PM
    • 17,898 Posts
    • 21,810 Thanks
    KeithP
    But you don't have to take my word for it.

    All the information you need is out there.

    Start with the Money Claim Online (MCOL) - User Guide.

    On page 14 of that document it says:
    How long does the defendant have to respond to my claim?

    The court will send out a claim pack to each defendant once the claim has been issued and allows 5 calendar days from the date of issue for the service of the claim. Therefore the 'date of service' is the 5th calendar day after issue.

    The defendant has 14 calendar days from the 'date of service' to file a response. If the last day for filing the response falls on a day that the court is not open (i.e. a weekend or public holiday), the court will allow the next full working day for a response. The defendant can extend the time to respond to 28 calendar days by filing an acknowledgment of service (AOS).
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Jun 19, 1:48 AM
    • 76,552 Posts
    • 89,889 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I wouldn't say it was the driver's blue badge if that was the case.
    Originally posted by Dovette
    I would. I think you SHOULD defend as driver and use the Equality Act.
    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
    • Dovette
    • By Dovette 11th Jun 19, 2:50 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Dovette
    I would. I think you SHOULD defend as driver and use the Equality Act.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    If they are not relying on Sch 4 of POFA can they still pursue me as RK? Also, they haven't gone into great detail on the particulars of claim (copied in my earlier post no 11) so I am unsure whether to mention the blue badge in my Defence statement (draft also in post no 11). Also, the driver and the blue badge holder are not the same person.
    Last edited by Dovette; 11-06-2019 at 2:53 PM. Reason: typo
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jun 19, 10:18 PM
    • 76,552 Posts
    • 89,889 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I am unsure whether to mention the blue badge in my Defence statement (draft also in post no 11). Also, the driver and the blue badge holder are not the same person.
    You must!

    Which parking firm and why do you think the PCN is non-POFA?
    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
    • Dovette
    • By Dovette 13th Jun 19, 8:46 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Dovette
    You must!

    Which parking firm and why do you think the PCN is non-POFA?
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    €uro Parking Services. Their Accounts are overdue at Companies House.

    I'm not sure if the PCN is non-POFA but when I asked the list of questions suggested here following receipt of LBC their legal firm replied that they weren't relying on sch 4 of POFA.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Jun 19, 11:21 PM
    • 76,552 Posts
    • 89,889 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    That's interesting, and worth putting in your defence, saying that outwith the POFA 2012 there is no lawful possibility of keeper liability on private land, and quote Henry Greenslade's words about UNDERSTANDING KEEPER LIABILITY in the POPLA annual Report 2015.
    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
    • Dovette
    • By Dovette 15th Jun 19, 3:24 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Dovette
    That's interesting, and worth putting in your defence, saying that outwith the POFA 2012 there is no lawful possibility of keeper liability on private land, and quote Henry Greenslade's words about UNDERSTANDING KEEPER LIABILITY in the POPLA annual Report 2015.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    I have put that in my statement in post #11, ie:

    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).
    • Dovette
    • By Dovette 25th Jun 19, 8:51 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Dovette
    Hi. Below is the latest draft of my Defence statement. I would appreciate any feedback, help or guidance as the deadline is fast approaching. Thanks in advance.


    DEFENCE

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

    2. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the driver/keeper of the Vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paragraphs 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16, paragraph 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

    3. Notwithstanding paragraph 2 above, the Parking Charge Notice states the vehicle was “parked in disabled bay/space without clearly displaying a valid disabled persons badge”.

    3.1 The second photograph in the Notice to Keeper, shows an occupant of the car holding a Blue Badge in a wallet The Blue Badge was shown to the parking attendant upon return to the car as the Blue Badge holder had forgotten to display it. Under the Equality Act 2010, this constitutes as evidence of a disability that requires "reasonable adjustments". That being said, the Equality Act does not require the occupant to display any sort of badge or permit. Anyone who fits the lawful definition of disability is entitled to make use of the "reasonable adjustments". In effect, the Claimant is adding arbitrary rules to the lawful right of someone to use a "reasonable adjustment", and this could be considered as a breach of the Equality Act.

    3.2 I cite Excel v Greenwood (Case No 3QT60496) (04/10/2013), which was about a forgotten Blue Badge, where the Judge found that Excel should have made reasonable adjustments once they knew about the disability.

    3.3 It is unreasonable to place an additional burden onto disabled drivers (with protected characteristics) in comparison to able-bodied members of the public who can park in the standard parking spaces at this car park, free of charge for 90 minutes.

    3.4 Parking Eye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, at 107 states: "In our opinion the term imposing the £85.00 charge was not unfair. The term does not exclude any right which the consumer may be said to enjoy under the general law or by statute". Therefore, in the case where a person is legally allowed a reasonable adjustment (a legal duty upon service providers, not guidance), they enjoy the rights accorded to those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act statute.

    3.5 A "badge is intended for on-street parking only" (The Blue Badge scheme: rights and responsibilities in England, Department for Transport).

    3.6 The Independent Parking Committee's Code of Practice states the following:

    "7. Disabled Motorists

    7.1 Under the Equality Act 2010 it is your duty to make "reasonable adjustments" to assist disabled people to use any services that you provide. It is incumbent on operators to determine what is necessary on their individual sites. Adjustments could include lowered pay and display meters, lowered signage and wider parking bays marked specifically for disabled drivers."

    4. The Defendant disputes the validity and accuracy of the Parking Charge Notice as the “Time of Issue” on the Parking Charge Notice states 15:04, which differs from the information in the Notice to Keeper, which states 15:05.

    5. The Claimant’s legal representative has stated in writing on xx xxxx 2019 that the Claimant is not relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and, therefore, has no legal right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

    6. 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).

    7. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

    8. Furthermore, it is denied that the Claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.

    9. The signage on and around the site in question was small, unclear and not prominent and did not meet the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. Therefore, no contract has been formed with the Defendant to pay £100.00, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.

    10. The signage terms fail the test of "large lettering" and prominence of the parking charge, as established in Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis (2015), which is fully distinguished. The unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver at the time the Parking Charge Notice was issued. The signs are in very small print, too high up to be read by occupants in a car before they park or leave the car. These signs should be visible and easy to read for disabled users from the car before they leave the vehicle. Had the occupants of the car seen the warning notices this would have served as a reminder to display the Blue Badge. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

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

    12. The Claimant has yet to respond to the Defendant’s letter dated xx xxxxx 2018, sent to xxxxxx, requesting information lacking in the Letter Before Claim, which breached the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, paragraphs 3.1 (a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2 and the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct, paragraphs 6 (a) and 6 (c). The following requests have been inadequately addressed:

    12.1 Whether the Claimant is pursuing me as driver or keeper.

    12.2 What the details of the claim are, for how long it is claimed the vehicle was parked, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated.

    12.3 Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement, the names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.

    12.4 If the claim is for a contractual breach, photographs showing the vehicle was parked in contravention of said contract.

    12.5 Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.

    12.6 Provide a copy of the contract with the landowner under which the Claimant asserts authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC Code of Practice, Section B, clause 1.1 Establishing Yourself as the ‘Creditor’.

    12.7 Photographs of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed) at the time of the alleged contravention.

    12.8 Provide details of the original charge and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added.

    13. As the Claimant has not provided me with the information in paragraphs 12.1 to 12.8 above, I refer the Court to the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 and ask the Court to impose sanctions on the Claimant and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13,15 (b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

    14. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

    15. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, 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 £100.00. The claim includes an additional £60.00, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. The Claimant is also claiming £50.00 for legal representative’s costs which cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court regardless of the identity of the driver.

    16. The Claimant also claims £60.00 for contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, (together with statutory interest of £12.25 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 184 at 8.00% per annum, continuing at £0.04 per day. I very much doubt these terms and conditions were contained in the signs and is surely an attempt to fraudulently obtain monies to which they have no entitlement.

    17. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules 3.4 (Power to Strike Out a Statement of Case).

    Statement of Truth:

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 25th Jun 19, 8:58 PM
    • 17,898 Posts
    • 21,810 Thanks
    KeithP
    ...the deadline is fast approaching.
    Originally posted by Dovette
    You still have over two weeks to finalise your Defence, but it is good to see that you are not leaving it too late.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 25th Jun 19, 11:35 PM
    • 76,552 Posts
    • 89,889 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    There are a lot of ''I'' and ''me''. All need changing to the Defendant.
    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
    • Dovette
    • By Dovette 27th Jun 19, 10:48 AM
    • 18 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Dovette
    There are a lot of ''I'' and ''me''. All need changing to the Defendant.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    I've amended those, thanks Coupon-mad. Is the rest of it Ok to go?

    Thanks.
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

2,547Posts Today

7,378Users online

Martin's Twitter