PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Court Claim Received
LittlestBear
post Tue, 12 Sep 2017 - 10:35
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 12 Sep 2017
Member No.: 93,989



Having a bit of a panic as I got a 'County Court Business Centre' Claim Form in the post today (attached) - it's addressed to my old address, and seems to be about a car I haven't owned for months, and the date they say I got a ticket was over a year ago...I don't remember getting a ticket at all! (I hope my OH didn't get me one!)

What should I do please?
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 12)
Advertisement
post Tue, 12 Sep 2017 - 10:35
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 12 Sep 2017 - 11:06
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,306
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Acknowledge the claim now using the details and password on the form. Do not put anything at all in the defence. This gives you an extra 14 days to submit an offence.

So how did you get the form, why did you not get any other paperwork?

This post has been edited by ostell: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 - 11:06
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 12 Sep 2017 - 11:13
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,949
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Where was the v5 registered to at the time of the allegation?


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 12 Sep 2017 - 12:40
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,274
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Do EXACTLY as above
We need more info, if possible.

Do not reveal the drivers identity, as one angle will be Keeper liabilty. If they know the driver they can avoid that hurdle.

Did you receive NOTHING about it? No Letter Before Claim?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LittlestBear
post Wed, 13 Sep 2017 - 08:32
Post #5


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 12 Sep 2017
Member No.: 93,989



Thank you for the replies.

I have acknowledged the claim online and put that I want to defend it, but not put in all the defence details.

The v5 was registered to me on the date of the allegation. I have a postal redirect from my old address. I did get one letter a week or so ago about a parking ticket but stupidly read the date wrong as 2017, and threw it away thinking it was something that had happened to whoever the owner of the car is now.

Is it possible to defend this claim, or do I have to pay regardless?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 13 Sep 2017 - 08:47
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,274
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Yes, it is 100% possible to defend this claim

You MUST go onto the MSE Forum, Newbies thread, Post 2. That has the steps of a court claim and explains it to you.

You then construct a defence. Look for NAPIER specific ones as they generally DO meet POFA compliance, however if you never RECEIVED an NtK you can say that - as one must have been received within either 14 days (POFA Sched 4, para 9, no windscreen ticket issued) or between 29 and 56 days (POFA sched 4, para 8, where a windscreen "notice to driver" was issued) in order to hold the keeper liable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LittlestBear
post Mon, 18 Sep 2017 - 16:38
Post #7


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 12 Sep 2017
Member No.: 93,989



Thank you kindly for the advice given.

I have spent considerable time reading through the thread you suggested on MSE, as well as searching for other threads re BW Legal / Napier.

What I am struggling most with when trying to construct a defence, is the lack of information available to me (only the claim form). I have no details or evidence of the alleged ticket, and I have no correspondence.

Do I SAR Napier to see what they have? Or BW perhaps?

If I SAR, it's likely that I'll not get a reply in time to submit the defence, which I understand is essential that I get something in on time - so should this be a short statement saying I have no details?

Thanks in advance
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Mon, 18 Sep 2017 - 17:01
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,624
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



The lack of information is bad but also not unusual, relying on a single line defence leaves you open to court lottery.

Do the SAR anyway so you get the info even if its too late for the defence, you can weave anything that comes up into the witness statement.

So lack of particulars should be only one point.

Others

Why is the £80 now inflated to £141.96, its not all interest and POFA means the £80 is all they can claim for (but you have to dispute the figure, the court assumes anything you do not dispute you agree to)

Where are the pictures of the signage, did the driver park in the dark and they were not illuminated, are they forbidding signs ?

Read up all BW Legal and Napier cases and look to see if they issue NTK that are POFA 2012 compliant, if not assume yours was also not compliant and as keeper you are not liable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 19 Sep 2017 - 06:49
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,274
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You always have "underlying" issues to challenge

Prove they can hold the keeper liable - as you did not receive and will sign a statement of truth to that effect any NtK they CANNOT hold the keeper liable under POFA sched 4 para 8 (if there was a ticket on the screen) OR para 9 (ANPR type ticket)

You challenge that signage was incapable of offering a contract to a driver, and IN ADDITION that the signage was not clear AND IN ADDITION the amount of parking charge was not clearly communicated as compared to the signds in BEAVIS - you will see the signs there had HUGE lettering for the £85 charge

Under POFA as pointed out the Keeper is ONLY liable for the amount on the parking charge (plus court fees) NOT the made up £140 odd... so you MUST include that.

EVERY BW LEGAL THREAD - all of them - alongside all Gladstones threads tell you to ATTACK their particulars of claim as "preliminary matters" - i.e. before we even get onto the actual alleged infringement of parking rules made up by a predatory company, did they issue the court papers fairly? Well, no, they didnt - their particulars of claim are sparse, using XXX characters of the allowed 1080 (count em!), FAIL to give details of the alleged breach, FAIL to be specific as to how they are chasing you (I bet they refer to driver and or keeper??) and failed to include a copy of the written contratc they allege was infringed - i.e. a copy of the signs. You can find these HUGE para covered everywhere

I am concerned nearly a week has passed before you came bakc. YOU MUST GET A MOTOR ON. We need to see a defence ASAP here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LittlestBear
post Tue, 19 Sep 2017 - 15:11
Post #10


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 12 Sep 2017
Member No.: 93,989



Thanks for the replies, and the understandable concern around timescales.

I have drafted a defence below....this stuff isn't easy sad.gif

1. I am xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, the defendant in this matter. My address for service is xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

2. This is my statement of truth and my defence.

3. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I seek the Court's permission to amend and supplement this defence as may be required upon disclosure of the claimant's case.

4. For the avoidance of doubt on the relevant date I was the registered keeper of a XXXXXXXXX, registered number XXXXXXXXXXX.

The claim is denied in its entirety except where explicitly admitted here. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

5. The Claim Form issued on the XXXXXXXXXXXXXX by Napier Parking Limited was not
correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “BW Legal Services Limited (Claimant’s Legal Representative)”.

6. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. And as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.

A) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.

B) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

C) The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The claimant has 1080 characters yet has chosen to use only 792 (including spaces) of them.

D) The particulars of claim give no information on the alleged “parking contravention”, nor the “FCN Terms and conditions”, signage or location maps upon which the claimant relies.

E) The claim shows no basis for the alleged liability or as to why the claim has been brought against myself as merely the registered keeper of the vehicle.

F) The Defendant therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

G) Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;


(i) Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, or to state another reason entirely, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
(ii) A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage).
(iii) How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time).
(iv) Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper.
(v) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter.
(vi) If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed.

H) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.

7. The defendant refutes that they were the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged “parking contravention”.

8. The Protection of Freedoms 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 all of the strict requirements.

9. The defendant asserts that no ‘notice to keeper’ was received, and therefore it is clear that the claimant has not complied with The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The registered keeper cannot be held liable.

10. The defendant refutes that fact that any contract was made with the driver, in the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the driver then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

11. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 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 Claimant claims a sum of £80 as a “Fixed Charge Notice (FCN)” (for which liability is denied) plus The Particulars of Claim include £54 that the claimant has untruthfully presented as contractual charges, which cannot be lawfully recovered. The defendant also has the reasonable belief that the charges have not been invoiced and/or paid.

12. 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 landowner. 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.

13. The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has, sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim.

The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LittlestBear
post Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 08:47
Post #11


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 12 Sep 2017
Member No.: 93,989



Could I please get some feedback on the defence draft posted? Thanks in advance
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 11:02
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37,603
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



You are submitting a defence, not a witness statement, no need for a statement of truth.

Line 3, add 'full' before disclosure



--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lamilad
post Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 18:11
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 450
Joined: 18 Jun 2016
Member No.: 85,061



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 12:02) *
You are submitting a defence, not a witness statement, no need for a statement of truth.

PD 15 would beg to differ:
"2.1  Part 22 requires a defence to be verified by a statement of truth."

Though if you're referring to para 2 then, I agree this is not needed.

This post has been edited by lamilad: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 18:13
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: Sunday, 25th February 2018 - 03:50
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.