PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Court letter regarding a private parking ticket
busy100
post Sun, 18 Mar 2018 - 00:44
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26
Joined: 15 Mar 2018
Member No.: 97,062



Hello Everyone

I am new to this forum and would really appreciate any help we can get.

My brother received a court letter 2 days ago regarding a private PCN that he recived last year and has aked me to help him write a defence. To be honest neither of us have any experience with this!

He received the PCN from Euro Parking who were managing the car park in West Bromwich Farleys Centre (It is now managed by Bank Park Management Ltd - not sure if they are both the same comapany that changed the name?). I know Bank Park use ANPR system now on this same car park.

Last year Euro Parking managed the car park by sticking PCN's on the car windscreen (not sure if they also used a ANPR system aswell), but when my brother went to the car park to drop someone off, he waited a bit in the car for them to return. Whilst waiting he saw a parking attendant walking around and he asked if he was able to wait in the car for few minutes as he is picking someone up who is on their way. The parking attendant said few minutes is fine, but whilst my brother waited he sneakily (without my brother's knowledge took photographs of the car - but just the back of the car not front). There was no PCN stuck on the windscreen or anywhere in the car .

Few days later he received a PCN in the post. He replied back to it asking for the proof that he did not pay for the ticket and also the pgotographs of the front of his car showing so.....
Unfortunately my brother did not keep a proof of posting.

They didn't reply to his letter, but he remembers receiving another letter showing more photographs of .his car but again only the back - not the front! and there was no reference to the letter he sent them.

Since then, he has been receiving a lot of reminders and debt letters - but he ignored them all!

Now two days ago he got the shock of receiveing the court letter and is asking for advice on how to go about it.
Any help/suggestions would be grately appreciated.

Please note my brother lives in Ledbury but comes to West Bromwich to visit family when on holiday.

I have uploaded copies of the court form below. Although I am sure you have seen this many times before!
Thank you









This post has been edited by busy100: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 - 02:13
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 52)
Advertisement
post Sun, 18 Mar 2018 - 00:44
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sat, 14 Apr 2018 - 09:35
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Yes he's referring to point 8.

Mention that it's contrary to the IPC code of practice as the Supreme Court in Beavis ruled that the Codes of practice were 'effectively binding' (on the operator).


--------------------
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
busy100
post Sat, 14 Apr 2018 - 09:52
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26
Joined: 15 Mar 2018
Member No.: 97,062



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 14 Apr 2018 - 10:35) *
Yes he's referring to point 8.

Mention that it's contrary to the IPC code of practice as the Supreme Court in Beavis ruled that the Codes of practice were 'effectively binding' (on the operator).


Ok so I will keep point 8 but tweak it to mention above.
Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
busy100
post Sat, 14 Apr 2018 - 10:18
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26
Joined: 15 Mar 2018
Member No.: 97,062



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 13 Apr 2018 - 20:14) *
Yes, I appreciate that. I’ll take a look in a bit - are you sure it’s today it has to be in by?


Hi

Have you got any further suggestions for me that I can add/amend/take out? I'm hoping to email it today.

As always your help and comments are greatly appreciated!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
busy100
post Sat, 14 Apr 2018 - 11:25
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26
Joined: 15 Mar 2018
Member No.: 97,062



Hi guys

Do claimant's court claim forms have to be manually signed , i.e hand written signature?

I notice on this case, theres a name printed and in bracket (legal representative) - no hand written signature. Is that necessary or not?

Just wondering whether I can write another point on this?

This post has been edited by busy100: Sat, 14 Apr 2018 - 11:26
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sat, 14 Apr 2018 - 12:01
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



You’re still citing repealed law. Your defence needs a wholesale re-write. I’m not going to be able to look at it anytime soon but will before Sunday night. You have no need to send it before then. Your call.

QUOTE (busy100 @ Sat, 14 Apr 2018 - 12:25) *
Do claimant's court claim forms have to be manually signed

No.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
busy100
post Sat, 14 Apr 2018 - 13:10
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26
Joined: 15 Mar 2018
Member No.: 97,062



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 14 Apr 2018 - 13:01) *
You’re still citing repealed law. Your defence needs a wholesale re-write. I’m not going to be able to look at it anytime soon but will before Sunday night. You have no need to send it before then. Your call.

QUOTE (busy100 @ Sat, 14 Apr 2018 - 12:25) *
Do claimant's court claim forms have to be manually signed

No.



Ok no probs. Look forward to it. Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
busy100
post Sat, 14 Apr 2018 - 16:24
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26
Joined: 15 Mar 2018
Member No.: 97,062



Hi Guys

I amended the defence points further-see below. Please see what you think of it now? I have got rid of some repeats - trying to tidy it up a little!
If further tweaks required, please let me know.

Thanks

Claim number: xxxxxxxx
Between:
Euro parking Services Ltd (Claimant)
And
Mr xxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

DEFENCE
1. It is acknowledged that I am the defendant, Mr xxxxxxxxxxx, residing at xxxxxxxxxxxxx and am the registered keeper of the vehicle.

2. It is denied that any "parking charges or indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in it's entirety.

3. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is ‘roboclaims’ and as such is against the public interest. Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point;

“ The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
1. those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’,
2. those which are incoherent and make no sense,
3. those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant ”

4. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence;
The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.
There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was, nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information.
The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.

4.1 On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking
charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.’
As the claim only states "parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable" which gives no indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees', because of this, I have had to cover all eventualities in defending such a 'cut & paste' claim which has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.

Therefore, as an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant's case.

5. The driver asked the operative if he could wait several minutes to pick up a passenger and without leaving the vehicle. The operative agreed to the request.
The defendant asserts that this permission from the claimant’s employee supercedes any signs and he is entitled to rely on promissory estoppel.
The defendant further asserts that the operative subsequently and dishonestly took photographs of the rear of the vehicle when he did not believe he would be observed.
The defendant notes that the operative did not take any photographs of the windscreen area that it would have been necessary to inspect for the presence of a parking ticket.
Neither did he attach a Parking Notice to the windscreen.
The defendant requested photographs of the windscreen as evidence showing the PCN attached but such request was ignored and none was provided.

6. It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.

7. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. The signs were insufficient in terms of their distribution, wording and lighting hence incapable of binding the driver, because:
a) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
b) The signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
c) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
d) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.
It is contrary to the IPC code of practice as the Supreme Court in Beavis ruled that the codes of practice were ‘effectively binding’ on the operator.

8. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the ‘parking charge’ has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated from £100 to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

9. The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges with no evidence of how these extra charges have been calculated.
No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.

10. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
10.1. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
10.2. Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
10.3. The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal representative’s costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

11. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.
It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.
As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

12. I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

13. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.


Signed:
Name:
Date:

This post has been edited by busy100: Sat, 14 Apr 2018 - 16:25
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sat, 14 Apr 2018 - 17:41
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



No. As I said, it is fundamentally wrong. No amount of tweaking will fix it, it needs to be completely re-written.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
busy100
post Sat, 14 Apr 2018 - 18:17
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26
Joined: 15 Mar 2018
Member No.: 97,062



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 14 Apr 2018 - 18:41) *
No. As I said, it is fundamentally wrong. No amount of tweaking will fix it, it needs to be completely re-written.


Ok I will wait for your suggestions. thanks ohmy.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 15 Apr 2018 - 20:27
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



Claim number xxx


IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE

Between

EURO PARKING SERVICES LIMITED (Claimant)

And

[XXX] (Defendant)

DEFENCE


1. Save where otherwise expressly admitted the Particulars of Claim are denied. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief sought or any relief.

2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of a [make] [model] motor car, registered number [xxx] ('the Car'). It is admitted that on 16 March 2017 the Car was at the Farley Centre.

3. It is denied that the Defendant breached any terms of parking.

a. The Claimant does not allege what the terms of parking were or how they were breached. The Defendant is therefore embarrassed in putting forward a defence to this allegation.

b. The Defendant assumes that any such terms would be communicated by signs at the Farley Centre. Subject to this being alleged by the Claimant, it is denied that any signs present were sufficient to communicate the terms of parking, to the Defendant or any other person.

c. It is denied that the Defendant or the driver of the Car breached any of the terms of parking. Such breach has not been particularised by the Claimant and the Defendant reserves his position on this issue once it is particularised by the Claimant.

4. The Claimant alleges that the Defendant was "driving the vehicle and/or keeping the vehicle". The Claimant should state its case clearly, as these are separate allegations with separate consequences for the Defendant.

a. If the Claimant alleges that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle and thus directly bound by the terms of parking (whatever they may be) it is required to prove that the Defendant was the driver.

b. If the Claimant alleges that the Defendant was the keeper of the vehicle, this is admitted. However, the Claimant would then only have a claim against the Defendant if it follows the statutory procedure set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. It is denied that the Claimant has complied with that procedure.

5. Subject to the Claimant providing further and better particulars of claim, the Defendant reserves his position in respect of any new information.

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this defence are true.

Signed:

Dated:

------------------------

I've kept open the following options for trial:

- Unclear signs
- Not the driver
- No compliance with PoFA

I don't think not the driver is a great defence - I'd simply ask you at trial and you'd have to admit it. That blows PoFA out of the water too. If it gets as far as trial you may have difficulties as you'll be arguing the signage issue only. I've not mentioned the conversation with the attendant, as that would undermine your not the driver defence, as you'd have to admit to driving. It's a bit late now to completely change tack. I've not seen any evidence as to how good/bad the signs were and whether you knew about them.

The other extraneous stuff I've left out (like commenting on compliance with CPR, asking for a strike out etc) as it should never appear in a [professionally drafted] defence.

Good luck (to your brother) but it's not the strongest defence case I've ever seen. Personally I'd rather have admitted being the driver and argued signage and the permission of the attendant but that runs its own risks, particularly if the signage is adequate and the attendant doesn't back the story up.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
busy100
post Sun, 15 Apr 2018 - 22:14
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26
Joined: 15 Mar 2018
Member No.: 97,062



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 15 Apr 2018 - 21:27) *
I've kept open the following options for trial:

- Unclear signs
- Not the driver
- No compliance with PoFA

I don't think not the driver is a great defence - I'd simply ask you at trial and you'd have to admit it. That blows PoFA out of the water too. If it gets as far as trial you may have difficulties as you'll be arguing the signage issue only. I've not mentioned the conversation with the attendant, as that would undermine your not the driver defence, as you'd have to admit to driving. It's a bit late now to completely change tack. I've not seen any evidence as to how good/bad the signs were and whether you knew about them.

The other extraneous stuff I've left out (like commenting on compliance with CPR, asking for a strike out etc) as it should never appear in a [professionally drafted] defence.

Good luck (to your brother) but it's not the strongest defence case I've ever seen. Personally I'd rather have admitted being the driver and argued signage and the permission of the attendant but that runs its own risks, particularly if the signage is adequate and the attendant doesn't back the story up.



Many many thanks Souhthpaw82, greatly appreciated. Will keep you all posted of the outcome!!
Once again thank you all!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peodude
post Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 13:54
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 898
Joined: 8 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,035



My case has just been discontinued so if you need a copy of my defence just send me your e-mail.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
greenbluegreen
post Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 20:30
Post #53


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 19 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,594



QUOTE (peodude @ Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 14:54) *
My case has just been discontinued so if you need a copy of my defence just send me your e-mail.


Congratulations,

I am fighting a similar one, fingers crossed I'll post soon to report success. Great people here!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 16:39
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