PCN at Claims Court Stage Options

[Tweaky]

Hey guys. Just wanting some advice on a current situation!

So to start from the very beginning:

The driver received a PCN for overstaying by 10 minutes and a couple of seconds over the allowed limit roughly this time last year, in a privately owned car park outside Costa Coffee. The alleged incident took place on the 8/**/2017 and the driver received a PCN with an issue date of 27/**/2017 and has ANPR proof.

This came about due to a few different things; the car park the driver parked in was directly next to another car park with a different allocated time limit (90 minutes). The signs within the actual car park they stayed in did state 60 minutes, but it was straight after a night shift, and they didn't pay much attention and just assumed it was 90 minutes. Once the driver finished their 'amazing' coffee, they didn't feel overly well, they put this down to tiredness from their night shift. Not going into details, but sometimes coffee just doesn't agree with them and makes them feel very light headed and needing a visit to the throne room . Due to them thinking that they still had plenty of time left they didn't worry about their car and just had a rest for 15 minutes until they felt well enough to drive home. There was the option to place their number plate in an iPad or some sort of machine like that to waver the 1 hour limit, but the driver wasn't aware that they weres able to do this, and didn't see any posters or leaflets to infrom them about this.

Over the last year they have received numerous 'warnings' and 'threats' from companies such as ZZPS and Wright Hassell with the total amount rising with each letter.

Yesterday they received a County Court Claim form, obviously they are going to appeal the full amount which comes to £327.xx

Any advice regarding their case would be most welcomed, if you need any more details then feel free to ask!

Thanks in advance



This post has been edited by Tweaky: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 21:24

[Advertisement]

[makara]

Edit your post to state "The driver in all instances - we aren't obliged to identify them.

[Redivi]

Which company ?

The Ipad, letter chain and amount of the claim looks like Civil Enforcement

It looks as if it's having one of its claims blizzards when it issues thousands of claims over a couple of days

It's a high pressure debt collection tactic with no intention to put them in front of a judge
If the claim is defended CEL cancels

The claim can't possibly succeed
Apart from all the fake charges that have been added, the British Parking Association Code of Practice requires a minimum ten minutes grace period after the end of the allowed parking time
The Notice to Keeper was also issued outside the deadline to recover the payment from the registered keeper if the company doesn't know who was driving

This post has been edited by Redivi: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 21:46

[Tweaky]

The company is indeed Civil Enforcement, they must be notorious for their dodgy ways

The driver is aware of the grace period, and wondered if it could be used in defence? I'm sure they'll be chuffed to if know they can.

The driver was browsing the site and did notice the 14 day deadline between captured CCTV and issue of a PCN, but wasn't sure if this was out of date or not?

This post has been edited by Tweaky: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 22:15

[Redivi]

Use the search box in top right corner to look for CEL claims

There will be lots of example defences but ignore the ones earlier than April 2017

[Tweaky]

The driver in question has a pretty tiny brain.. they'll attempt to draft some sort of defence together and see how it turns out, will probably need some support however.

On the county court claim letter, there is a box that says 3.Defence... does the driver just fill this in with bullet pointed details or is it possible to do this online where they have more space?

Scratch that, the driver understood the small print...... however filling in the acknowledgement of service and the defence and counterclaim form should preferably be done online right?

EDIT: The Claim Form looks very dodgy, blurry logos and missing boxes everywhere.... is this the norm?

This post has been edited by Tweaky: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 23:43

[Redivi]

Yes

Claim forms are often as tatty as you describe
It's why some OPs have thought they were fake and ignored them

Fill in the acknowledgement of service now online

Do not contest jurisdiction
Do not put anything at all in the defence box
Do not put anything in the counter-claim box

This gives an extra 14 days to prepare and send the defence

Do not do this online
There isn't enough room
A proper CEL defence is 2000 - 2500 words
Post it or email as a pdf making sure that it's signed

[SchoolRunMum]

It was said on MSE this week that a person could copy a typical CEL defence from another thread, and not understand it, and still win, because CEL will discontinue later*



*as long as the Defendant didn't grab defeat from the jaw of victory by failing to read letters properly, thinking defence is the only job!

[nosferatu1001]

ALso, and this is vital here - the DRIVER is doing NOTHING here

THe claim form is in the name of the vehicles KEEPER. The KEEPER will be defending AS THE KEEPER

Even IF the driver and keeper happen to be the same person, CEL DO NOT KNOW THAT so dont tell them and ont assume they do!

[Tweaky]

The 'defendant' is gonna do the moneyclaim online now and will follow the suggested recommendations above

They're guessing they start the 'Start Defence' section when they have their defence ready? if that makes sense?

This post has been edited by Tweaky: Sat, 24 Feb 2018 - 17:43

[Redivi]

He doesn't submit the defence online

See my Post #7

[Tweaky]

So they send this seperately?

Do they wait for a response from the courts before sending?

This post has been edited by Tweaky: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 23:21

[ostell]

Acknowledge the claim online NOW using the web page and password on the form. Do not put anything in the defence. The acknowledgement extends the time to submit the defence to court. The defence must be submitted to the court before 33 days from the issue date on the claim form. You will not hear from the court.

So you prepare your defence and post it here for critique, redacting identifying information.

IT IS THE KEEPER THAT SHOULD BE DOING EVERYTHING NOW.

[Redivi]

So they send this seperately?

Do they wait for a response from the courts before sending?

The only response will be the on-line acknowledgement

He wouldn't be the first person to find himself on the wrong end of a default judgment, waiting for the court to reply before sending his defence

[nosferatu1001]

Op to be clear here

At no point does anyone ever identify the driver.
They are their own legal concept, different from the concept of the keeper. Even if they are the same person, the ppc doesn’t know this and no one tells them. We don’t know this, and we don’t want to know!

This is why we’re saying THE KEEPER must do EVERYTHING

[The Rookie]

The DEFENDANT is gonna do the moneyclaim online now

No the person being claimed against is, you seem desperate to grab defeat from the jaws of victory, edit time again.

[Tweaky]

OK, all caught up :/

Going to be honest, all this is severely melting a certain somebody's brain :/


This post has been edited by Tweaky: Sat, 24 Feb 2018 - 18:52

[Tweaky]

Would it be possible to post a copy of a defense for your critiquing?

Omitting sensitive details of course

[ostell]

Would it be possible to post a copy of a defense for your critiquing?

Omitting sensitive details of course

Recommended

[Tweaky]

Civil Enforcement Limited v - - - - - - - - - -,
I am - - - - - - - - - -, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle - - - - - - - - - -,.
I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:
1. The original Parking Charge Notice:
a. was served to the defendant 5 days late. The Claimant committed to providing the defendant with detailed particulars within 14 days of the date of incident (08- - - - - - - - - -,) – these finally arrived on 27- - - - - - - - - -, which surpasses the 14 day timeline in order to provide the defendant with particulars. Due to this, the claimant has failed to comply with POFA 2012 to hold the keeper liable, as such the Keeper has no liability in this matter. The PCN has therefore been served out of time and is invalid and I request that the court strike the claim out as the claimant has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim (CPR Part 24.2).
b. states 'From 08/- - - - - - - - - -, - - - - - - - - - -, 56 To: 08/- - - - - - - - - -, - - - - - - - - - -, 09' which is within the allotted time of one hour free parking, plus the grace period of 10 minutes which is mentioned in the AOS Codes of Practice paragraph 13.4, which states 'You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes'. Therefore the defendant was not in breach of the terms and conditions and cannot be held accountable for parking charges.
c. shows images of the alleged offence occurring, but the images are unclear as to when they were taken. The images contain no watermarks relating to time/date and therefore could have been taken at any time on any day subsequent to the vehicles production.
d. demanded requirement of payment in accordance with parking terms and conditions clearly stated on the signage, however did not include images of aforementioned signage. Instead opting to write a sentence which is under a different wording to that which was stated on the signage at the time of the incident

2. The Claim Form issued on the --/--2018 by by Civil Enforcement Limited:
a. was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person. The claim does not have a valid signature and is not a statement of truth. It states that it has been issued by “Civil Enforcement Limited” as the Claimant’s Legal Representative. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by a person holding a senior position and state the position. If the party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth but in his own name and not that of his firm or employer.

b. includes particulars of claim that are extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.

c. includes a sum of £50, described as ‘Legal representatives’s costs’. The Claimant is known to be a serial litigant. Given a standard working week, the claimant’s legal representative can spend no more than a few minutes per claim, hardly justifying the £50. Since these are fully automated, no intervention is required by a solicitor, and the Claimant is put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred. The Claimant maintains case notes for each person who has accessed the case, and it is suggested this would be sufficient. The Claimant cannot rely on Nossen’s Letter Patent (1969) to justify the charge, as this is part of their everyday routine, and no ‘expert services’ are involved. The £50 is not valid because it is not incurred by the claimant.

d. did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs in the Particulars of Claim.

e. states within the Particulars of Claim; 'Time In: 08:-- Time Out:10:--' The information provided here seems to be portrayed in a way as to cause confusion in regards to the AOS Codes of Practice paragraph 13.4, and apears to deliberately omit delicate information in regards to the aforementioned ‘grace period’.

3. The claimant:
a. is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information and are very vague.
b. has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017). 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.
c. has claimed debt + damages for the registered keeper of the vehicle but has yet to provide adequate support that the original ANPR pictures show the keeper or the driver in any aspect of the alleged offence

d. failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions.


Admittedly some is referenced from other cases
Also admittedly the brain isn't made for this

The plan is to add more however..... any suggestions on things missing?

This post has been edited by Tweaky: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 - 00:04