• Name of the Claimant: Premier Parking Solutions Limited

• Claimants Solicitors: BW Legal

• Date of issue: 14/9/18

• Date to submit defence - 16/10/18

• What is the claim for – :

1.“The Claimant's Claim is for the sum of £100.00 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 22/09/2015 (Issue Date) at 09:04:07 at Mount Dinham Exeter

2.The PCN relates to [MY CAR]. The terms of the PCN allowed the Defendant 28 days from the Issue Date to pay the PCN but the Defendant failed to do so. Despite demand having been made the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.

3.The Claim also includes Statutory interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum a daily rate of 0.02 from 22/09/2015 to 13/09/2018 being an amount of £21.76.

4.The Claimant also claims £60.00 contractual costs pursuant to PCN Terms and Conditions.”

• What is the value of the claim:

Amount claimed: 181.76

Court fee: 25.00

Legal representative’s costs: 50.00

Total amount: 256.76

• Has the claim been issued by the Private parking Company or was the PCN assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim: The Private Parking Company

• Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment: N/A as far as I’m aware

• Have you sent BW a cpr3114 yet:

I haven’t seen anything with this reference.

I didn’t know that I needed to send BW anything.

Via moneyclaim.gov.uk I’ve submitted the required acknowledgment of service and declared my intention to dispute the whole claim which, from what I’ve seen, I can also do online.

Do I also need to send BW anything – the court documents don’t indicate as such , unless I’m paying the claimant.

The only communication I’ve had with BW is to let them know I had a permit to park at that location at that time – which as expected they considered irrelevant.

I’m putting my defence together and would be grateful for any help you can offer.

Along the road from my child’s school in Dinham Road, Exeter, is a small residential area, which starts with a church which has on road parking.

This area has parking signage from PPS.

The church has links with this CofE school but is a separate entity.

With the agreement of the church, the school issues parents with a permit, allowing parking in this area for a short period at drop-off and pick-up times.

The “infringement” occurred in September 2015 and the claimant alleges that my car was parked in this area while not displaying a permit.

The photographs that their legal team have provided do not appear to show a pass on display.

I do have a permit and the car was parked within the agreed times.

Their legal team has been emailed a copy of the permit but unsurprisingly couldn’t care less – they want my money.

Their response failed to directly address the permit I sent and have stated that my responsibility was to abide by the T&Cs and that “As the vehicle involved in the contravention was not displaying a valid Ticket or Permit these Terms and Conditions were broken.”

A history of the correspondence I’ve had so far, some of which I’ve uploaded, is below.

Hopefully I’ve appropriately redacted what’s necessary but please let me know if not. Thanks all for taking time to help.

History so far:

1. 20150922 PPS PCN (uploaded)

2. 20151105 PPS letter (uploaded)

3. 20151208 PPS letter – as before but with £30 admin fees = £130

4. 20151224 PPS letter – as before = £130

5. 20160201 Now with Debt Recovery Plus (DRP). Extra £30 with no explanation = £160 (uploaded)

6. 20160216 DRP – as before = £160

7. 20160302 DRP – as before = £160

8. 20160324 DRP – reduced payment offer of = £160!!!

9. 20170411 DRP – letter before referral for legal action – as before = £160

10. 20180702 BW Legal – letter of claim – now £190 (uploaded)

11. 20180818 My email to BW Legal with permit (uploaded)

12. 20180821 Email from BW Legal requesting my name and address (which was provided in my original email)

13. 20180821 Email to BW Legal advising them that my name and address is in the original email

14. 20180823 Email from BW Legal advising of their right to claim and including pictures – (uploaded)

15. 20180914 County Court letter (uploaded)

16. 20180914 BW Legal letter advising of court claim (uploaded)

•

attachment.pdf

thread tidied title updated.

get this running to BW

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim)

most of this you've done...

pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform.

.

register as an individual

note the long gateway number given

then log in

.

select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box.

.

then using the details required from the claimform

.

defend all

leave jurisdiction unticked.

click thru to the end

confirm and exit MCOL.

get a CPR 3114 request running to the solicitors

.

type your name ONLY

no need to sign anything

.

you DO NOT await the return of paperwork.

you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.

this how you file your defence in a few days too.

as you have a permit anyway and you've told them

this should be a walk in the park ..

dx

Again thanks for the help with this. Could I get some advice regarding your last post please.

1. Can I email this CPR 31.14 to BW or do you think that would have less standing/not be appropriate?
    
   
2. Is there a rationale appropriate to my case to request “Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007”.
   I’m just after understanding how to use this information if and when it’s supplied.
    
   
3. The site was attended by one of a small group of PPS employees each day.
   They would have seen the car which was parked there daily as one of only 10-20 cars for over five years and likely recognised it as a permitted vehicle.
   Do you think I should seek details of the ticket issuing employee and shift/location pattern?
   

they must have planning permission for the signs

just post that Cpr recorded if poss you can't email and you should never use email ever on any of this type of thing..inc consumer debts.

the rest is immaterial at present.

get reading up on other claimform threads in this forum.

the fact yo have a permit will probably kill this dead if it ever gets to court..

matters not they cleverly took photos of it not on display??

Will get that done. Many thanks for taking time out to help.

The NTK is not POFA compliant so they cant actually demand money from ANYONE let alone the keeper.

It doest state what the breach was and it doesnt state that they are the creditor so not even an invoice.

These 2 things are vital to create a liability so you will shove this down their throats along with the lack of planning consent and anything that is awry with their signage.

The screen ticket is interesting as the offset print says that the breach was "valid ticket or permit displayed"

that is one of the more interesting breaches I have come across so if you didnt display a ticket then you are home and dry.

Blanking out the entire vehicle images rather than just your reg isnt helpful in that matter,

can you repost a decent picture so we can see the vehicle and its relation to its surrounds and also windscreen?

NEVER email or phone these bandits,

they will just use it as a method of harassment and also to claim they have sent documents when they havent done so in time,

typically at 11pm on the day they were supposed to have arrived by 4pm

ericsbrother

Thanks for your advice, I'll try and sort pictures, they sent me eight, presumably to try to overwhelm me into not contending the case!

What source of contract law are you quoting in saying "It doest state what the breach was and it doesnt state that they are the creditor so not even an invoice."?

Is there a code of practice to which they have a duty to adhere? I will have a rummage through the forum, just wondered if someone knew.

Again, thanks.

can I just check

the claimform POC in post 1 states NO reason why they issued the PCN?

what you have typed is EXACTLY [minus per info] what it says?

It's as I've written but I've attached page 1 for you to see.

Also, notwithstanding that I'm disputing the entire claim, have I not seen elsewhere that there's a limit to what they can charge for solicitor's costs? The letter they sent me (which is item 16 in the attachment in my first post) states that this includes solicitors fees of £110.

But in the claimform this is buried in two places:

(1) the POC where they say "the claimant also claims £60.00 contractual costs pursuant to PCN Terms and Conditions"

(2) in the figures box at bottom right where the £60.00 is within the £181.76 on the first line and they have only separately mentioned £50 "legal representative's costs."

(15) 20180914 County Court claim (page 1 only).pdf

as long as you have done as post 2

then the rest can wait whilst you go read up on things.

Yes, sent the CPR 31.14 to BW today and the rest was already sorted.

Yes, it is in my post, it is the 2012 Protection of Freedoms Act and you need to look at paras 4 to 9. The wording of the NTK is quite specific and they ahve fouled up.

ericsbrother

 

Thanks for your advice, I'll try and sort pictures, they sent me eight, presumably to try to overwhelm me into not contending the case!

 

What source of contract law are you quoting in saying "It doest state what the breach was and it doesnt state that they are the creditor so not even an invoice."?

 

Is there a code of practice to which they have a duty to adhere? I will have a rummage through the forum, just wondered if someone knew.

 

Again, thanks.

I need to submit my defence over the next couple of days and would welcome any feedback on the following that i propose submitting. Many thanks.

1. It is admitted that the defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

2. It is denied that the defendant has any liability whatsoever to the claimant.

3. At the time of the alleged incident the vehicle had a permit to park at the relevant location, which is a both a church’s parking area and thoroughfare to a nearby residential area. The car was authorised to be parked on site at certain times by the site owners, through an agreement with the nearby school to allow parents to drop-off and collect their children. The car was parked within these allotted times.

4. The claimant has been provided with evidence of this permit and has refused to acknowledge or address this fact.

5. The defendant does not acknowledge that the permit was not displayed. The claimant has not provided indisputable evidence of this. The photographs that have been provided by the claimant to the defendant do not demonstrate this conclusively.

6. Notwithstanding points 1 – 5: The particulars of claim entered on the claim form do not include the specificity required to allow the court to recognise the speculative and illegitimate nature of this demand for money. No explanation has been given regarding the circumstances for which the charge has been raised.

7. In correspondence the claimant has stated that the terms and conditions of a unilateral offer has been accepted by virtue of the defendant parking their vehicle at the relevant location. No such agreement was in place or offered. The claimant’s signage is a prohibition, allowing only permit holders to enter and therefore any perceived breach of this prohibition would be a matter of trespass that the claimant is not authorised to pursue – Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd v Bull & 2 Others (B4GF26K6, 21 April 2016).

8. The claimant has not provided the requested evidence to demonstrate that it has the authority to operate on this land and issue charges in its own name. This should be readily available and cover all points laid out in sections 7.1 and 7.2 of the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice of which the claimant’s signage states they are a member.

9. The total amount claimed by the claimant is £256.76. Included within this is £110 of solicitor’s fees as indicated within correspondence sent by the claimant’s representative to the defendant. These costs are not allowed in this process which is presumably why the claimant has hidden £60 of this within the phrase in the particulars of claim, “The claimant also claims £60.00 contractual costs pursuant to PCN Terms and Conditions.” No such terms and conditions have been presented or agreed.

10. It is a legal requirement that parking charges must be fair, reasonable and not disproportionately high. For the claimant to attempt to extort £100 from the defendant for five minutes parking to drop off a child for school in an area where there is no charge for parking breaches this standard by any fair and objective analysis.

I think p'haps you need to drop the attempts at using legal speak in numerous places.

you are not legally trained, use plain speech.

i'm not sure you need to add so many points either.

those can be addressed in you witness statement late IF the claim goes that far.

stick to the points, briefly, in plain English EB pointed to earlier.

It's a fair point regarding the legal speak - that's what i started off with and am just following the form I've seen dotted around here and other forums.

I'm not sure I follow your reference to EB. If that's important, please expand on that - otherwise I'll simplify the language and submit this.

post 6 outlines most of it …..KISS

keep it simple stupid...

it doesn't need to be submitted until/by on the mcol website - 4pm Tuesday so a few days yet.

don't submit until EB gets a look at it.

I don't have a problem with the principle of KISS but wasn't aware that I would have the opportunity to expand on my submission so thought i needed to cover all points I wanted to raise. I'm also not clear what point EB was suggesting I should be submitting regarding the NTK - or even which specific document this is.

the ntk is page 2 of your upload in post 1

Oh god, not another one based on out of date stuff from another web site

use common englich language except where absolutely necessary so drop the " it is admitted" nonsense, both sidees know you were the keeper, that is how they got to write to you. Ity only becomes relevant of you werent the keeper at the time.

The contract is with the DRIVER so admitting being someone else is immaterail.

Your outline defnece should be quite simple at this point, 2 or 3 lines will suffice. the more you say the more you limit what you can expand on later

so something like

"1. there was no offer of a contract by the claimant so there is no cause for action"

2. the defendant had the landowners permission to be there so in any case would have supremacy of contract"

all the rest you save for later, chances are it doesnt get to an actual hearing by the time you submit your witness statement which will have all of your writings and pictures and other material to support it. They would then be likely to discontinue rather than risk a big costs order and action by you against them fro breach of the GDPR for telling porkies to get your keeper details.

The “it is admitted” nonsense comes from the sticky on this site which every new defendant is directed to: ‘Closed: Received a Court Claim From A Private parking Speculative invoice?? - How To Deal With It HERE***Updated Aug 2016***'. Have a look at 'Q2) How should I defend? Here is a template for a decent Defence…'

Nevertheless, I’m grateful for the advice from you both and have submitted a basic defence as you advised so will let you know what happens. As I said, I originally thought (I’m guessing like most), that being a county court this would be the only opportunity for written submissions which is why it was a bit expansive.

The basic 3 line defence is best at the acknowledgement stage, a big fglowery defence at that point would allow the PPC to concoct more lies to try to remedy their shaky POC and reason to issue a claim.

Having submitted my defence and having also sent BWL the 31.14 request,

BWL have now responded with some of the documents I requested

- not the contract between landowner and themselves, just copies of previous letters.

They have made a reduced payment offer of £165.

they are also asking, under 31.14, for any documentation I will use in my defence, and are claiming that my defence is not compliant with CPR 16.5.

I'd welcome any advice regarding how to respond to this, including how fulsome my response should be

- I realise they're trying to intimidate me with their BS but don't want to fall foul of any genuine CPR requirements.

Thanks for any help.

I've uploaded the following documents in an all-in-one pdf:

20 - 20181007: To BW Legal (CPR 31.14 request)

23 - 20181015: N9B form court defence submission

25 - 20181018: BW Legal acknowledging CPR 31.14 request

26 - 20181023: BW Legal (offer and response to defence - offering reduced payment of £165 and enclosing copies of past letters)

(20,23,25,26) All-in-one.pdf

its all sent to try and confuse you

ignore it.

if when it gets that far

you will exchange document bundles at the witness statement stage.

as yet this hasn't even been allocated to your local court nor has mediation [which you refuse] via N180 DQ been sent.

it a vailed discount letter as they know they cant claim damages for anything, you've not damaged anything.

In your experience dx100uk there's no potential detriment to my case (from the court's perspective) in not engaging with them beforehand? That said, I have already let them know that I have a permit that allows temporary parking and by virtue of not 'ticketing' any car with a permit PPS are acknowledging its validity.

none