PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

BW Legal county court claim
hyperr
post Fri, 2 Nov 2018 - 21:03
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 21 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,519



I received the below letter today regarding a parking ticket received in April this year. I cant remember exactly who would have been driving, 3 Family members and 2 friends Would have had access to the Car.

Ive acknowledged the Ticket, and srm kindly pointed me to this defense:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

National Car Parks Limited (Claimant)

-and-

<NAME> (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration <REG>, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in the car park at <LOCATION>.

3. The Particulars of Claim state do not specify if the claimant is pursuing the Defendant as the registered keeper or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. Even if the writing on the sign was readable, the signage is in such a position that any driver must look away from where they are going in order to even see the sign itself. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

7. The British Parking Association ("BPA") Code of Practice sets the requirements for entrance signs. The following requirements are mandatory:
(a) The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead.


8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

9. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

10. In the Particulars there is also a second add-on for purported 'legal representative's costs' of £50 on top of the vague £60, artificially hiking the sum to £<CHARGE>. This would be more than double recovery, being vague and disingenuous. Such costs are not permitted (CPR 27.14)

11. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

12.‘Keeper liability’ under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) is dependent upon full compliance with that Act. It is submitted that the Claimant’s Parking Charge Notice and/or Notice to Keeper failed to comply with the statutory wording and/or deadlines set by the POFA and, further, that the signs failed to provide ‘adequate notice’ of any charge. Any non-compliance voids any right to ‘keeper liability

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Would this defense be suitable and also what is the criteria on whether it goes to court or not? Will it be the strength of the defense or just pot luck, on the newbie thread it does say it is a low chance, but quite a few threads i have read have had their case go to court. I really hope i don't have to go to court.

This post has been edited by hyperr: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 - 23:40
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 23)
Advertisement
post Fri, 2 Nov 2018 - 21:03
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ostell
post Yesterday, 08:59
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,637
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



I knew that but was tired last night, post modified. The value of forums.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hyperr
post Yesterday, 09:39
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 21 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,519



QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Sun, 11 Nov 2018 - 22:09) *
I've never seen a PPC take a month to reply to a simple SAR sent online. Yes they have a month, but the photos are to hand and are easy for them to supply, often within the week IMHO.

You cannot have acknowledged the claim on the same date it was sent, so can we have exact dates please? You certainly should wait a good week, if you are safe to do so.

No you are not emailing two versions of the defence.


Double checked mcol I received Claim 18th OCT, Acknowledgement submitted 19th, they received the acknowledgement 22nd OCT.

So I print out the defence sign and date it scan that in and email to ccbc@justice.gov.uk,

This post has been edited by hyperr: Yesterday, 09:40
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Yesterday, 09:44
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,385
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Just take a photo of your signature and append to the bottom. Then convert to PDF. Resultes in a smaller PDF and isnt a waste of paper.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Yesterday, 21:14
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,197
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE
ccbc@justice.gov.uk


No that's not the right email; it has AQ in it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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: Tuesday, 13th November 2018 - 03:38
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.