Jump to content

Amis95

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Amis95

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Aha, I see, that makes sense. I am hoping for the best now and keeping my fingers crossed this doesn't come back and bite me. you have a good point there.
  2. Hi dx100uk, I have been confused with conflicting advise from both forums. I did cut down but they said I woudn't be able to add anything at WS if I dont mention it in defence. I was also worried about the deadline. Doesn't point two confirms that I am not the driver so no keeper liability? here's the post on MSE forum - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=75963952#post75963952 I posted in their forum as I have seen somewhere in this site that you recommend them and their newbies post.
  3. This was the final version submitted today: In The County Court Claim No: ____________ Between UK Car Park Management Limited (Claimant) -and- _________ (Defendant) ____________ DEFENCE ____________ 1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle registration number _____ on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. 2. It is denied that any 'parking charges’ are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety because no keeper liability, no cause for action against the defendant. The claimant has failed to show locus standi, the defendant does not believe they have a right to bring an action against anyone. 3. Accordingly, it is denied that the driver breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct as no enforceable contract offered at the time by claimant, no cause for action can have arisen. 4. The Claimant also stated in the Particulars of Claim that ‘the driver of the Vehicle agreed to pay the parking charge within 28 days of issue yet failed to do so’. However, the claimant has failed to provide evidence of that agreement and failed to identify who the driver that it is referring to. 5. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event hence incapable of binding the driver as the claimant failed to comply with International Parking Company Code of Practice ‘PART E Schedule 1 – Signage’. 6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim. 7. 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. 8. CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will – (a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and (b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party. 9. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself. 10. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters. 11. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity. 12. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff. 13. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery. 14. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order by Judge Tailor and DJ Grand was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing and stating that: ''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...'' 15. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged. 16. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused. 17. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover. Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. ______ 12th July 2019
  4. Thanks Ericsbrother, I completely get your point. I actually wasn't the driver but what do I say when I am asked who s the driver? because I actually can't just blame it on anyone. I have made it clear no keeper liability, and the £60 double recovery too. I had some extended feedback from MSE and their view is slightly opposite to CAG as they are saying I have to include all the points in the defence otherwise I won't be able to bring new points to the table at WS stage. So they have given me extra points to add. I have now submitted it. hope it's ok. Thank you guys for such valuable feedback and taking your time to support me. without you, i probably would have paid it by now.
  5. Hi Ericsbrother, I am not sure who the driver was, it a year ago and lots of people borrow my car on a regular basis.
  6. Hi guys, I have cut it down and took your feedback. I was thinking to add the pinkbvelvet case at WS stage as well as the rest of the points. planning to submit it tomorrow morning. In The County Court Claim No: XXXXXXX Between UK Car Park Management Limited (Claimant) -and- XXXXXXX (Defendant) ____________ DEFENCE ____________ 1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. 2. It is denied that any 'parking charges’ are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety because no keeper liability so no cause for action against the defendant. The claimant has failed to show locus standi so the defendant does not believe they have a right to bring an action against anyone. 3. Accordingly, it is denied that the driver breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct as no enforceable contract offered at the time by claimant so no cause for action can have arisen. 4. The Claimant also stated in the Particulars of Claim that ‘the driver of the Vehicle agreed to pay the parking charge within 28 days of issue yet failed to do so’. However, the claimant has failed to provide evidence of that agreement and failed to identify who the driver that it is referring to. 5. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety. Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Name xxxxxxxxx Signature xxxxxxxxx Date xxxxxxx
  7. Hi Ericsbrother, where can I find the pankbvelvey case? Can I add that in the WS rather than here? thank you for the valuable feedback. I am about to post the revised version of the defence, thanks
  8. thank you dx100uk, I now understand the Penalty vs Parking charge as you explained it very well. I have been reading up as much as I could to put the draft defence together. what do you recommend cut and keep? thank you
  9. ahh I see thanks honeybee13 Hi Guys,I have drafter the defence, I welcome your feedback: In The County Court Claim No: XXXXXXXBetweenUK Car Park Management Limited (Claimant)-and-XXXXXXX (Defendant)____________DEFENCE____________1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.2. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. 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. The Claimant also stated in the Particulars of Claim that ‘the driver of the Vehicle agreed to pay the parking charge within 28 days of issue yet failed to do so’. However, the claimant has failed to provide evidence of that agreement and failed to identify who the driver that it is referring to. 5. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event hence incapable of binding the driver as the claimant failed to comply IPC Code of Practice ‘PART E Schedule 1 – Signage’. 6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.7. 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.8. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.Statement of Truth:I confirm that the contents of this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.Name xxxxxxxxxSignature xxxxxxxxxDate xxxxxxx
  10. Hi dx100uk, in all the letters (NTK, DRP and Gladstone) it refers to as parking charge, no where in these letters it says parking fine. the only court letter I received is the claim form and i have noted above what it says in the particulars of claim. everything else on the claim form is standard information. I may be miss understanding your question? sorry if I am
  11. Hi eircsbrother, I am not sure who was driving the car at that moment as lots of people use my car. you are right! there are no signs at the entrance and where there is sign, its very very poorly displayed. I am working on the defence, should be able to share with you shortly thanks
  12. Hi DX100uk, Apart from whats in the particulars of the claim, there isn't anything else where it says parking fines
  13. Hi guys, Wondering if you can help me. I received a claim form from County Court Business Centre, Northampton for Private parking fine I received back in June 2018. I wasn’t wise in responding to any letters to date hoping it will go away which is my bad hence landed on this site for help. Here are all the info you may need: Name of the Claimant – UK Car Park Management Claimants Solicitors – Gladstones Date of issue – 10/06/2019 (Deadlines - 29th June for AOS & 12th July for Defence) Particulars of claim: ‘1.The driver of the vehicle with registration xxxxxx (the vehicle) parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the contract) at 93-101 GREENFIELD ROAD – LONDON GREATER LONDON E1 1EJ, on 11/06/2018 thus incurring the parking charge (the PCN). The driver of the vehicle agreed to pay the PCN with in 28 days of issue yet failed to do so. 3.The claimant claims the unpaid PCN from the defendant as the driver/keeper of the vehicle. 4.Despite demands being made, the defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £100 for the PCN, £60 contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £11.69 pursuant to s69 of the County Court Act 1984 at 8.00% per annum, continuing at £0.4 per day.’ Value of the claim - £246.69 The claim has been issued by the Private parking Company Date of the infringement - 11/06/2018 Date on the NTK – 14/06/2018 They took two pictures of my car and printed them in the letter As mentioned, I did not respond to any communications. I received, NTK, Formal Demand letter in July 18, two DRP letters on Aug 17 and one in Sept 18, and three Gladstones letter in Oct 18 and then ‘letter before claim’ in March and April 19. I will do the AOS asap and send a SAR to UK CPM. Please help me with a writing a defence, I have already read through many, but they are a bit overwhelming as I am not sure what my grounds are. I am sure the driver did not agree to pay anything as they have stated in the particulars of the claim. This was a Camera PCN so whoever was driving the car would have not known that they received a PCN. Also, I have visited the car park to see the signage and they are appalling. They are affixed high, with tiny fonts and the signages are blocked with bins and other materials so you can’t get close to it. There are no signage at the entrance of the car park. I look forward to your response. Thank you
×
×
  • Create New...