County Court Claim, Help please! Options

[jon1p]

I received a parking charge back on 2nd October 2015 as keeper of the vehicle

Initially I ignored it and then later took some advice around that time either from this forum or another similar, I can't remember. But essentially ever since I received the claim I have never responded. Recently I received a couple more letters chasing and I thought they were just trying their luck again, but... a few days ago I received County Court Claim and another letter from the solicitors. I have attached this correspondence and the first claims chase letter I received.

Question is, have they actually begun proceedings, will they and whats my best course of action.

Appreciate any guidance.

Jon





This post has been edited by jon1p: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 14:36

[Advertisement]

[ostell]

That original PCN does not conform to POFA

So the land is subject to byelaws and therefore is not relevant land for the purpose of POFA and keeper liability.

Even if relevant land then the PCN fails on several points:
No period of parking 9 (2) (a) Moving in front of a camera cannot be parking
No invitation to keeper in the format prescribed by 9 (2) (e)
No creditor identified 9 (2) (h)
Warning of keeper liability incorrect 9 (2) (f)

The signs were not lit and therefore unreadable and unable to create a contract

[jon1p]

thanks

[jon1p]

Ok here is a first draft of my defense, any comments gratefully received. I need to submit it by the 19th.

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

However it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim on the following grounds:-

1. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with. The registered keeper has not been proven as the driver, as such the keeper can only be held liable if the claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements.
(i) 9 (2) (a) The notice does not supply the period of parking and provides evidence only of moving in front of a camera.
(ii) 9 (2) (e) The notice does not invite the keeper in the format prescribed.
(iii) 9 (2) (h) No creditor is identified on the notice.
(iv) 9 (2) (f) The notice incorrectly warns the keeper of liability

2. The proper claimant is the landholder. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landholder to Premier Park Ltd.

3. Premier Park Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land.
(i) Premier Park Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land.
(ii) 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 right to bring action regarding this claim.
4. On the date to which the claim pertains Berry Head Car Park was subject to the Borough of Torbay (Torbay Coast & Countryside Trust) (Off Street Parking Places) Order 2013 byelaw and as such the land is not relevant land for the purpose of POFA and keeper liability.

5. The signage on the site in question was unclear, unlit and not prominent on site/around the areas in question, so no contract has been formed with driver(s) to pay £100, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days

6. 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.

7. As the POFA restricts liability to the sum of the parking charge itself and the BPA Code of Practice has a ceiling of £100 which at the time, made it a condition that any charge issued must be based upon a GPEOL, the amounts claimed are excessive and unconscionable. It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs - and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add an extra £60 + £50 legal representative costs + £27.82 interest to the PCN and that those sums formed part of the contract in the first instance..

8. The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss for the following reasons:
a) The claimant is not the landholder and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
b) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.

9. In addition the claimant has yet to respond to the defendants request for information submitted to BW Legal on numerous occasions who have actively obstructed the over-riding objective of narrowing the issues under dispute.

10. 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.


Thanks

[ostell]

Your first point should be that the land is subject to byelaws and therefore it is not relevant land for the purpose of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and therefore there can be no transfer of liability from the driver at the time to the keeper

Next point is even if it were relevant kand they have failed to comply with the requirements of the act namely .....

[jon1p]

Great, yes good point, I will shuffle the order as you suggest. Thank you

[nosferatu1001]

Delete 8
I odubt that it was a GPEOL-era ticket but either way, delete ANY mention of GPEOL. Thats been dead for FOUR YEARS now

£50 for legal reps IS ALLOWED to *file* the claim.

7) Amend and split into two

- challenge them to prove the £60 was allowed and expressly stated on the contract. It wasnt so this is an abuse of process
- challenge them to prove how they are exempt from POFA which states the maximum.... As they are claiming a sum they are not entitled to, this is an abuse of process/

[redrory41]

Its utterlyOK to give them that info.

I would use a utility bill personally.

I had the same response from Premier Park . I spoke to the ICO as I considered their demands for ID was excessive , particularly photographic and the cars been sold so no V5. The ICO agreed and I was advised to escalate to a complaint, they said Premier Park was getting confused with SAR requests and GDPR.


I personally think Premier Park are being obstructive. The SAR request details match the details they obtained from DVLA and are the same details Premier Park used to pass onto which ever debt company they saw fit and now to BL legal who have issues proceedings, without ever questioning the accuracy of those details. I would not wish to provide this dodgy outfit with any more personal information even a utility bill. The do not give any assurances under GDPR regarding how this information will be safely stored or destroyed.

Furthermore the letterhead Premier Park uses breaches Trading Disclosure regulations . Premier Park have been reported to Companies House who are following this up. How many years have they been trading for and they cant even manage to get their letter head correct!!

[redrory41]

Just to update this post.
In 1999 Torbay Council leased land at Berry Head to Torbay Coast and Countryside Trust .
But this did not include the car park which was not leased to the Trust until July 2017.
However, the Trust 'contracted' Premier Park to 'manage' the car park from May 2015 to July 2017 .
Interesting muddle.
The Trust have ignored all my letters.