Directions Questionnaire from CSB Law received via email, They’ve asked for Claim to be heard on Papers only |
Directions Questionnaire from CSB Law received via email, They’ve asked for Claim to be heard on Papers only |
Thu, 2 Nov 2017 - 22:10
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 66 Joined: 14 Oct 2016 From: london Member No.: 87,760 |
Hi All
My partner (the registered keeper) received a Court Claim Form today for a PCN issued on 30 June 2017 by CSB Solicitors/London Parking Solutions for parking outside our flat whilst bringing shopping in. I have included the Particulars of Claim paragraph below. No PCN sticker was stuck on the windscreen at the time of the offence, but she received a letter in the post from London Parking Solutions in August chasing payment (indicating that London Parking Solutions obtained registered keeper details from the DVLA within 30 days as she is registered keeper). She ignored the letter as she knew it wasn't a real PCN but presented me with a copy of the Claim Form from Court today. She did not make any contact with London Parking Solutions, no calls, emails, letters etc - she simply ignored the letter. Can someone please provide some advice please? Whats the best course of action for defending this? My partner is registered disabled/Blue Badge holder if it helps? Many thanks,
This post has been edited by tld2004: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 - 19:54 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 2 Nov 2017 - 22:10
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Fri, 3 Nov 2017 - 08:34
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Was it the first notice to keeper in august, and exa ctly when? Did they meet POFAs requirements to send the first NtK such that it is received between 29 and 56 days?
Blue badges hae no INHERENT meaning on private land, only what the landholder states. What does your lease state? Or AST, or rental agreement, etc.... Edit the post. The REGISTERED KEEPER was contacted by the parking company, they dont know who drove, dont tell them. THis is due to POFA requirements. They are claiming that the defendant is the driver. Waht is the date of issue of the claim form? The defendant MUST go ONLINE, and ACKNOWLEDGE the claim form. That gives you 33 days from date of issue for the defendant to print, sign, scan to PDF and email defence to the court. You need to get cracking then on a defence - there are dozens here. This post has been edited by nosferatu1001: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 - 08:36 |
|
|
Fri, 3 Nov 2017 - 08:53
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
There was no windscreen ticket therefore question is: Was the notice to keeper received within 14 days.
User "The driver.... " in your first post, any way you like so that the possible identity of the driver cannot be inferred. Edit: Just realised that the time period is in excess of the 14 days and therefore there is no keeper liability so important to edit. This post has been edited by ostell: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 - 08:56 |
|
|
Fri, 3 Nov 2017 - 20:06
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 66 Joined: 14 Oct 2016 From: london Member No.: 87,760 |
Thanks both for your replies.
Here is the timeline: “offence” happened on 30 June 2017 NtK dated 6 July 2017 (so received by 8 July 2017 latest). Another NtK was received on 13 July 2017. Then letter received from UCS dated 17 August 2017. Then a letter from CSB Solicitors dated 5 September 2017. Court claim form dated 30 October 2017, received in post yesterday - 2 November 2017. I can confirm these dates are 100% accurate as she’s just given me all the letters! Please advise This post has been edited by tld2004: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 - 20:47 |
|
|
Fri, 3 Nov 2017 - 21:39
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
So,, again, what does the lease say about parking?
|
|
|
Sat, 11 Nov 2017 - 11:19
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 66 Joined: 14 Oct 2016 From: london Member No.: 87,760 |
Hi Guys
Apologies for the delay - I've been obtaining copies of the property's paperwork. I have uploaded a redacted copy of what I think is the lease document here: https://imgur.com/a/eRYHJ The only thing I can see that references parking is on page 4: Schedule 2, points 5 and 6. Can someone please confirm if this helps? Many thanks This post has been edited by tld2004: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 - 15:04 |
|
|
Sat, 11 Nov 2017 - 18:06
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 18,751 Joined: 20 Sep 2009 Member No.: 32,130 |
QUOTE Then a letter from CSB Solicitors dated 5 September 2017. Was that purporting to be a Letter before Claim, but without enclosing any information, copy letters, photos, a copy of the contractual sign? QUOTE parking outside our flat whilst bringing shopping in. You need to read Jopson v HomeGuard, a persuasive case heard on appeal and decided by Senior Circuit Judge, HHJ Charles Harris QC, linked here along with Saeed v Plustrade and Pace v Noor (all useful for the Defendant's later Witness Statement and evidence: http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/20...al-parking.html Was the car 'left standing on the accessway'? If so, then it contravenes point #6 of the Schedule in the lease, however, it can also be argued that the lease PROHIBITS such parking, therefore it is impossible for a third party parking chancer to actively offer parking licences there at a cost. i.e. signs effectively saying: ''you can park here but you must pay us £100'', in itself breaches the covenants in the Schedule. See what I mean? These cases are always worth fighting. Make sure the Defence is signed by the Defendant keeper (NOT YOU) and I would base it on Johnersh's ''own space'' defence as linked in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread on MSE here: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822 You will have to edit it to suit because her lease doesn't quite match the case Johnersh wrote that defence about. Why does the lease talking about indemnifying a 'Club' and suggests it's not wholly a residential site? Can you tell us more about the site? |
|
|
Sat, 11 Nov 2017 - 18:42
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 66 Joined: 14 Oct 2016 From: london Member No.: 87,760 |
Hi SchoolRunMum,
Correct - the letter from CSB Solicitors was the letter before claim. Just a one page letter with no appendices attached etc. RE: the land: Its a big block with circa 80 flats. From what I know, the landowner/freeholder owned a big plot of land. Some of it was leased/sold to the cricket ground thats behind the block flats and some leased/sold to BP for them to build the petrol station. I've uploaded a pic of the parking sign for reference: https://imgur.com/XWEmTHR This post has been edited by tld2004: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 - 18:48 |
|
|
Sun, 12 Nov 2017 - 07:43
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11,094 Joined: 24 Aug 2007 From: Home alone Member No.: 13,324 |
Look for "forbidding contracts" as the sign makes no offer. In addition the "penalty" element is not clear and fails the prominence test of ParkingEye v Beavis (backed by Dennings Red Hand Rule in Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461)
This post has been edited by emanresu: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 - 07:46 |
|
|
Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 20:45
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 66 Joined: 14 Oct 2016 From: london Member No.: 87,760 |
Hi All
Attached is my draft defence I put together using a combo of Johnersh's and other forum posts, as suggested. Your thoughts on this defence would be greatly appreciated. I've highlighted any additions I've made in red. DEFENCE Many thanks |
|
|
Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 06:54
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Statement of truth is for a witness statement, not a defence which the judge will decide for themselves if its 'true' (valid) or not.
-------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 09:40
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 66 Joined: 14 Oct 2016 From: london Member No.: 87,760 |
Statement of truth is for a witness statement, not a defence which the judge will decide for themselves if its 'true' (valid) or not. Good point - Thank you. Does the Defence look ok though? Any other comments or feedback? There are a few points I'm not certain of:
I believe that the main defence exists for the following reason:
I'm worried that I'm confusing things, especially with point 7. Can someone please help? Thank you This post has been edited by tld2004: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 10:02 |
|
|
Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 10:44
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Lease - if this was for parking on access ways, why bring up parking on an allocated spot? if the vehicle was stopped on the access way for loading / unloading, MAKE THIS ABSOLUTELY CRYSTAL CLEAR. This is a normal use of an access way close to a building, and as loading / unloading are EXPLICITLY different to the act of parking - see TMA2004, where DYL prohibit PARKING but allowing boarding / alighting AND loading / unloading as authority. They cannot say "no parking" and then say you pakred when the vehicle wasnt.
POint 10 - no, because you dont actually talk about forbidding signs. You talk about standing, which is irrelevant to this points set up. You just need to state that the signage makes no offer to park, meaning anyone parking there is a trespasser at worst as no contract can be formed without an offer, and as the claimant is not hte landholder, they have no standing to bring a claim of trespass against the D. |
|
|
Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 14:18
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 66 Joined: 14 Oct 2016 From: london Member No.: 87,760 |
Thank you Nosferatu1001.
I have amended the Defence as follows, is this better? DEFENCE |
|
|
Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 15:10
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
10 - not "In accordance...." - the definition and distinction between load // unloading and parking is given in the TMA2004, and in addition in Homeguard vs Jopson, a persuasive appeal court case, it was found that there is a difference between parkign and stopping for the purpose if loading and unloading, and that there is no sense in stopping flat owners from being able to load and unload.
Well 11 is way too short. Youhave not explained that they are therefore not offering any consideration (parking, for example) and so no contract can possibly be formed. |
|
|
Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 20:46
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 66 Joined: 14 Oct 2016 From: london Member No.: 87,760 |
Ok, I've made some further changes to help flesh it out more...
Any thoughts/comments? DEFENCE This post has been edited by tld2004: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 15:38 |
|
|
Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 13:27
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 66 Joined: 14 Oct 2016 From: london Member No.: 87,760 |
Can anyone else help to review the defence? It would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks DEFENCE This post has been edited by tld2004: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 13:29 |
|
|
Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 14:00
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
strict proof... that the vehicle was not unloading and was actually parked.
It seems OK. As you can tell, there is a LOT of activity in the forum, and were struggling to keep up |
|
|
Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 17:20
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 66 Joined: 14 Oct 2016 From: london Member No.: 87,760 |
Thanks very much Nosferatu, its greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
Sun, 19 Nov 2017 - 16:49
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 66 Joined: 14 Oct 2016 From: london Member No.: 87,760 |
Hi Guys
I've logged in online to MCOL to file the Defence, and it is asking for "Defence Particulars". Can someone please confirm if this is where I submit the main defence, or is "Defence Particulars" for something else? Thanks |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 17:46 |