Court Forms received for pcn August 2012 wording for defence help neede |
Court Forms received for pcn August 2012 wording for defence help neede |
Mon, 29 Jan 2018 - 10:55
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 29 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,202 |
I have just received court forms for pcn ticket August 2012 I was not the driver. I wrote to parking company when I received forms before court action and explained I was not the driver and alleged offence was before poca 12 that they need to pursue driver, I do not know who driver was it's 5 years ago. I have filed acknowledgement form on line intend to defend all need help with wording for defence any help will be greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 29 Jan 2018 - 10:55
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 29 Jan 2018 - 11:00
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,985 Joined: 20 Aug 2008 Member No.: 21,992 |
We need to know some background, such as which parking company? Which solicitors (I'm going to hazard a guess at BW Legal)?
What do the particulars of claim say? There are example defences floating around if you do some searching on this forum, and useful guidance over on the MoneySavingExpert Private Parking forum. Your main defence point is pretty solid, you were not the driver, and this pre-dates the PoFA Schedule 4 enactment on 1st October 2012, and hence they cannot pursue you for any charges. Have they sent any copies (or have you retained them from the time) of any paperwork they sent, so we can also pull that apart? -------------------- Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
|
|
|
Mon, 29 Jan 2018 - 18:24
Post
#3
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 29 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,202 |
Thank you The Parking Company is VCS Solicitors BW legal
I have had dozens of letters since 2012 I have letters from 2014 Rossendales COllect were then appointed original balance 120.00 the initial amount was for 70.00. . They say the balance is now 308.00 amount claimed 232.00, don't know how this amount is calculated court fee 25.00 Legal representative 50.00. I have noticed N1SDT form is signed just BW Legal Services LImited it's not signed by a person. Letter dated 24.3.14 says 120.00 original balance plus 36.00 fees letter dated 9.4.14 states 120.00 original balance fees nil outstanding amount 156.00 , letter22.4.14 says the same letter dated 6.5.14 says the same then next letter received 11.7.16 says 120.00 plus 54.00 initial legal costs They are saying the balance relates to 120 .00 Parking charge (it was for 70.00 originally in August 2012 )and 54.00 clients initial legal fees which were detailed in the car park terms and conditions. I have ignored all letters up to 10.8.16 where I answered their letter saying I was not the driver and the alleged offence pre dates POFA . Next got court forms on 27.1.18. I have had no letter before claim. They are quoting Parking Eye Limited v Beavis |
|
|
Tue, 30 Jan 2018 - 09:15
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,985 Joined: 20 Aug 2008 Member No.: 21,992 |
Firstly, go online using the instructions on the claim form, and acknowledge the claim. Leave the defence box completely empty, this is very important. State that you will be defending the claim in full and do not dispute the jurisdiction (unless you are outside England and Wales, in which case let us know).
I wish them all the luck in the world applying Beavis v Parking Eye to this. Others more expert than I will be along shortly, but try and search out some example defences and witness statements for cases where PoFA did not apply and the main defence point (although you will use several) is that the parking company cannot hold the Keeper liable, and the Keeper was not the driver at the time of the incident. Start researching this now. You will also point to their unreasonable behaviour - pursuing the RK where the RK has denied being the driver, their failure to send a LBA (and failure to comply with Pre-Action Protocols) in claiming costs against them. Can you type out, word for word (although leave out names and reg details, etc) the particulars of claim on the form? Have they supplied any photos of the signage showing the exact wording (although, given the reputation and past performance of some of these companies, they could be pictures of any old sign to be honest). Is the car park still there and can you get there easily? There are several claims in the system right now for VCS for parking incidents that took place in car parks managed by their sister company Excel. This would be another killer blow for them if this was the case here. If you can post up any pictures of signs that would also be useful. Use a photo hosting site such as TinyPic, and then post the link to the photos here, there's instructions in the FAQ section. -------------------- Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
|
|
|
Tue, 30 Jan 2018 - 20:36
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
QUOTE I wish them all the luck in the world applying Beavis v Parking Eye to this. indeed. A time machine arg from BW, there appears to be no limit to the illogical depths they can sink to. -------------------- Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.
Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader. |
|
|
Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 07:09
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,194 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
I’m not sure how it’s a time machine argument? Beavis sets what the law has always been, it doesn’t change the law.
-------------------- 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 |
|
|
Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 19:22
Post
#7
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 29 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,202 |
Hi all
just received letter from BW legal they have supplied original PCN with the top of it missed off and a photo of the vehicle parked all the window wipers are up off the windscreen does anyone know why this would be . I noticed on PCN that they gave 14 days to pay but on statement of truth on court forms it says 28 days also PCN states if 80.00 not paid in 14 days then charge will be 120.00 . I have had letters asking for 120.00, 136.00 and 174.00 is this normal behaviour from BW Legal. They also state they are not relying on POFA to impose liability against me as RK so my points in relation to this are irrelevant . Ticket was pe POFA August 12 can they do this? They say I am not legally entitled to see the contract between landowner and their client is this the case? |
|
|
Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 20:58
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 272 Joined: 19 Aug 2016 Member No.: 86,499 |
I noticed on PCN that they gave 14 days to pay but on statement of truth on court forms it says 28 days also PCN states if 80.00 not paid in 14 days then charge will be 120.00 . I have had letters asking for 120.00, 136.00 and 174.00 is this normal behaviour from BW Legal. Unfortunately - only the amount on the PoC matters now They also state they are not relying on POFA to impose liability against me as RK so my points in relation to this are irrelevant . Ticket was pe POFA August 12 can they do this? That means they're attempting to pursue you as the driver at the time - which is good news. They will try and rely on Elliot vs Loake to show you were driving, however this can be rebuked if included. Basically, they have no evidence you were driving and as mentioned earlier, you cannot remember because of the passage of time, so this should be enough to snatch victory on it's own! They say I am not legally entitled to see the contract between landowner and their client is this the case? You can contest their ability to issue tickets on the land as part of your defence, and as part of that they may have to provide the contract to prove their case - I don't believe they are obliged to provide this to you personally until they enter it as evidence. |
|
|
Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 21:21
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
The Op doesn't have to remember who was driving or prove that it was somebody else
He only has to rebut the VCS assertion that the chances are better than 50:50 that it was him A firm declaration that it was not himself (better still had never been to the car park) is still evidence but anything will do : He would have been at work A witness that can place him elsewhere An admission from the driver - as long as it's more than six years after the date of the parking event A receipt An Email sent at the time He also wants to attack all the additional charges They are so self-contradictory that he has the reasonable belief that none has ever been paid and they are numbers plucked out of thin air to inflate the demand He requires proof that the amounts were invoiced and paid Although he was not present, he can state that the terms and conditions regarding additional charges are so vague that they cannot give rise to a contract Even if the BWL charges have been incurred, they're nothing more than an attempt to avoid CPR 27.14 that legal costs cannot be recovered |
|
|
Sun, 29 Jul 2018 - 08:12
Post
#10
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 29 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,202 |
Just wanted to up date i went to court on Friday case was dismssed Claimant could not prove who was driver and signage they produced was not in place at time of contravention they admitted evidence of signage which was dated 2 years before contravention.
Thank you to all who post on this site you gave me invaluable information and the strength to see it through to the end. To all going through the court process stay strong you can do it . Thank you. |
|
|
Mon, 30 Jul 2018 - 07:38
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 211 Joined: 27 Dec 2014 Member No.: 74,894 |
Well done.
|
|
|
Mon, 30 Jul 2018 - 08:14
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
Well done
Did you remember to ask for your costs ? |
|
|
Mon, 30 Jul 2018 - 09:39
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Indeed well done! Any costs?
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 08:45 |