PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Court Claim - NPM
GardaBaker
post Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 20:39
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 12 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,500



Hi all,

Unfortunately within the last few days I was in receipt of a court claim from NPM for a rather large sum. I've already acknowledged receipt so have had my time to prepare a defence extended to 28 days. I'm posting here to get some advice and hopefully some help on how I can defend this claim, if that's not too much trouble.

As I know I should be careful with sharing too many details, what things am I allowed to share from the claim to better help prepare my defence?

The Particulars of Claim that they have sent with the form, are very flimsy. They have use two different amount of PCNs (i.e., they start with X PCNs and then end saying they want to claim Y PCNs), they have a date wrong about when contact was made, and they have said that the collections cycle continued but I was in receipt of no further letters. I think they have sent the letters to my old address, yet have sent new PCNs to my new address - could this warrant a potential DPA breach counterclaim?

A little backstory to the situation:
I live in a block of flats that have NPM operating in the car park, and have been issued several PCNs for not having a permit displayed in the car I own (they have pursued me as the keeper rather than the driver, despite me saying I will not tell them who the driver is). In my tenancy agreement it mentions nothing about a private parking company, but it does say I have the right to quiet enjoyment of the property. I'm trying my best to contact the landlord to see what the lease says about the parking space, but nothing so far. I found out today though that when the property was first built, there was no PPC in the area - they came later.

I have also contacted the property management company to ask if they will end this dispute, as they were the ones that hired them. They refused. I then asked for them to provide me with the contract they have with them and also with the agreement from my landlord. They refused. Which makes me believe that either they are just completely unhelpful, or they know the contract hasn't been agreed by the landlord and they have no right to be operating here.

I should note that unfortunately when the PCNs were first issued to me, I ignored them as I was under the belief that it would go no further (I read some very misguided posts when checking online) and I regret ignoring them as it was a foolish mistake - had I known what I know now, I would have kicked back straight away.

Can someone please advise me on what I should do next? I've read many posts about this issue and seeing all this information is quite overwhelming and it's a lot to take in all at once.

Many thanks,
G
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 20:39
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
GardaBaker
post Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 11:08
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 12 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,500



I'd be grateful for any advice on the above, thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 12:09
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



4: I would leave out the last bit of the sentence about being place of residence. it could bring up an argument about who was the driver.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GardaBaker
post Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 13:16
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 12 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,500



QUOTE (ostell @ Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 12:09) *
4: I would leave out the last bit of the sentence about being place of residence. it could bring up an argument about who was the driver.


Thanks, but wouldn't that be brought up regardless of this sentence? As the first sentence "I, [name] or [address]" will be the same address as the location for 4 - and the claim has been issued to the address that is the location for the PCNs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 13:58
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Just don't point out the obvious (to your disadvantage)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 14:10
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Try this - rearranged points in a logical "Even if" order and beefed up/added a couple, removing some unnecessary detail:

I, [name] of [address], am the Defendant in this case and was the Hirer of the vehicle

1. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought

2. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity with no details that enable the Defendant to prepare a full and complete Defence.
The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant The Defendant requests that the Court strikes out the claim as a breach of CPR 16.4 - failing to disclose any cause of action or in the alternative orders the Claimant to provide Further and Better Particulars of Claim.

3 It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract with the Land-holder that expressly permits the Claimant to do so
The Claimant is put to proof of any such authority
Even if the Claimant has such authority, it has no locus standi in the present case.
The Claimant has alleged that no permit was displayed and the parking was therefore unauthorised.
A driver that was unauthorised to park would be a trespasser
The only party with a remedy for trespass is the land-holder - the Defendant himself, not the Claimant - and damages are limited to the land-holder's actual loss or, if none, the benefit gained by trespasser
For the avoidance of doubt, the Defendant denies that the parking was unauthorised

4 It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle.
The Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 (hereafter referred to as PoFA) Para 14 to transfer liability to the hirer from the registered keeper.
a) The Claimant has failed to serve a ‘notice to hirer’
b) The Claimant has failed to provide the defendant with copies of the documents described in POFA Para 13(2)

5 Even if the Defendant was the driver, no contract with the Claimant is possible.
The Defendant has an absolute right to the quiet enjoyment of his property and the Claimant can offer no consideration.

6 The Claimant has never had any contract with the driver and no breach of terms and conditions is possible.
The Claimant has previously asserted that a permit was not displayed and the parking was therefore unauthorised
It is nonsense to argue that a contract was concluded to do what is forbidden.

7 Notwithstanding that no contract could exist, it is denied that the Driver was in breach of any parking conditions
The Defendant avers that the location was his own property and the Driver had an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the Defendant's lease, that cannot be over-ridden by any alleged parking terms displayed by a third party.
A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.
The operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease.
The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011.
The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to a hearing

8 The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the debt recovery charges claimed by the Claimant have not been incurred and puts the Claimant to proof that they were invoiced and paid

9 Notwithstanding Paragraph 8 above, debt recovery charges are none of the Defendant's concern.
Even if the Claimant had met the conditions of POFA Schedule 4, Para 4(5) states that the maximum amount that it can recover is that in the original Parkiung Notice.

10 The Defendant invites the court to use its Case Management powers to strike out the claim as in breach of CPR 16.4 and having no prospect of success

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.


This post has been edited by Redivi: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 14:13
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GardaBaker
post Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 15:21
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 12 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,500



QUOTE (Redivi @ Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 14:10) *
Try this - rearranged points in a logical "Even if" order and beefed up/added a couple, removing some unnecessary detail:

I, [name] of [address], am the Defendant in this case and was the Hirer of the vehicle

1. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought

2. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity with no details that enable the Defendant to prepare a full and complete Defence.
The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant The Defendant requests that the Court strikes out the claim as a breach of CPR 16.4 - failing to disclose any cause of action or in the alternative orders the Claimant to provide Further and Better Particulars of Claim.

3 It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract with the Land-holder that expressly permits the Claimant to do so
The Claimant is put to proof of any such authority
Even if the Claimant has such authority, it has no locus standi in the present case.
The Claimant has alleged that no permit was displayed and the parking was therefore unauthorised.
A driver that was unauthorised to park would be a trespasser
The only party with a remedy for trespass is the land-holder - the Defendant himself, not the Claimant - and damages are limited to the land-holder's actual loss or, if none, the benefit gained by trespasser
For the avoidance of doubt, the Defendant denies that the parking was unauthorised

4 It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle.
The Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 (hereafter referred to as PoFA) Para 14 to transfer liability to the hirer from the registered keeper.
a) The Claimant has failed to serve a ‘notice to hirer’
b) The Claimant has failed to provide the defendant with copies of the documents described in POFA Para 13(2)

5 Even if the Defendant was the driver, no contract with the Claimant is possible.
The Defendant has an absolute right to the quiet enjoyment of his property and the Claimant can offer no consideration.

6 The Claimant has never had any contract with the driver and no breach of terms and conditions is possible.
The Claimant has previously asserted that a permit was not displayed and the parking was therefore unauthorised
It is nonsense to argue that a contract was concluded to do what is forbidden.

7 Notwithstanding that no contract could exist, it is denied that the Driver was in breach of any parking conditions
The Defendant avers that the location was his own property and the Driver had an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the Defendant's lease, that cannot be over-ridden by any alleged parking terms displayed by a third party.
A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.
The operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease.
The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011.
The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to a hearing

8 The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the debt recovery charges claimed by the Claimant have not been incurred and puts the Claimant to proof that they were invoiced and paid

9 Notwithstanding Paragraph 8 above, debt recovery charges are none of the Defendant's concern.
Even if the Claimant had met the conditions of POFA Schedule 4, Para 4(5) states that the maximum amount that it can recover is that in the original Parkiung Notice.

10 The Defendant invites the court to use its Case Management powers to strike out the claim as in breach of CPR 16.4 and having no prospect of success

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.


Thanks for this, Redivi, its great!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 18:02
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



This is wrong - it doesn’t end

“2. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity with no details that enable the Defendant to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant”
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 18:08
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Apologies

I meant to cut out that second sentence
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GardaBaker
post Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 19:22
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 12 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,500



Thanks both, should it look like the following then?

2. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity with no details that enable the Defendant to prepare a full and complete Defence.
The Defendant requests that the Court strikes out the claim as a breach of CPR 16.4 - failing to disclose any cause of action or in the alternative orders the Claimant to provide Further and Better Particulars of Claim.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 19:46
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Yes, That's exactly what I meant
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GardaBaker
post Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 20:53
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 12 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,500



Thanks again for everyones help. Defence has been submitted and we shall see what happens next. I also managed to get ahold of the landlord who has apparently contacted the building management company - I may get lucky and they tell the PPC to drop everything, but who knows!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 7 Mar 2018 - 08:19
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



If they ORDER their AGENT to cancel, get it in writing. If they refuse, it will look bad for them as they are themselves in breach of contract

Have you read up on the next stages? MSE Prking tickets Forum, NEWBIES thread (about 2 threads down on the first page of the forum), POST 2 has a COMPLETE walkthrough of the entire process, written by a very respected poster.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GardaBaker
post Wed, 7 Mar 2018 - 13:43
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 12 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,500



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 7 Mar 2018 - 08:19) *
If they ORDER their AGENT to cancel, get it in writing. If they refuse, it will look bad for them as they are themselves in breach of contract

Have you read up on the next stages? MSE Prking tickets Forum, NEWBIES thread (about 2 threads down on the first page of the forum), POST 2 has a COMPLETE walkthrough of the entire process, written by a very respected poster.


I gave the building management a call and they said they’d get the response over to me but it was more or less the same response they gave me last time. So will be interesting to see what both have said to each other.

Thanks, I have that thread saved as a favourite but haven’t read past defence stage yet but shall do shortly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 7 Mar 2018 - 14:48
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Keep referring to that thread - acomon mistake is to assume documents will arrive - for example, if the DQ is sent but doesnt turn up, you then obviously dont respond, and you get a default against you. Sucks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GardaBaker
post Thu, 8 Mar 2018 - 14:19
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 12 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,500



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 7 Mar 2018 - 14:48) *
Keep referring to that thread - acomon mistake is to assume documents will arrive - for example, if the DQ is sent but doesnt turn up, you then obviously dont respond, and you get a default against you. Sucks.


I’ve just checked the claim status and they’ve issued the DQ to me. As per the post I’ll wait a week and if no arrival will chase, although last time I received the paperwork pronto. What I was trying to find out though, was at what point would the court’s case management come in to play and they strike out the claim? (If they felt that way inclined)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Thu, 8 Mar 2018 - 14:34
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Send your DQ and complain that you haven't received a copy from NPM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GardaBaker
post Thu, 8 Mar 2018 - 15:10
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 12 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,500



QUOTE (Redivi @ Thu, 8 Mar 2018 - 14:34) *
Send your DQ and complain that you haven't received a copy from NPM


Oh the DQ has only been issued today. So I should also be getting a copy of their DQ? And this should be within the required timescales (I’ll have to recheck to see what they were again). I know as well that if it arrives outside of the timescales that I should keep a copy of their envelope as some of them pre-date the letter when they send it outside the timeframe!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 8 Mar 2018 - 21:17
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Of course you get a copy of their DQ, same as you send a copy to them of yours.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GardaBaker
post Sun, 11 Mar 2018 - 18:46
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 12 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,500



Regarding the DQ, when sending it shall I stick to regular post and receipt of sending for proof, tracked or signed for?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Sun, 11 Mar 2018 - 20:45
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



QUOTE (GardaBaker @ Sun, 11 Mar 2018 - 18:46) *
Regarding the DQ, when sending it shall I stick to regular post and receipt of sending for proof, tracked or signed for?

Regular post with receipt of sending
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 08:29
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here