OK Folks, I'm back from holiday and have prepared the CPR31 letter per the template and will be sending it today

So I have 2 weeks to file the defence, Is this fairly straightforward to complete and are the words below still considered the latest and most effective version of response, Thinking in particular of any case law since 2012 that could further support it and someone mentioned earlier that loading is not parking - is that worthy of a mention at this stage or do I keep the powder dry?

"The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4.  The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle].

2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant.

3.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 

4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant.

5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 

6.  The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all."

FTM Dave, thanks for clarifying about the word quirk, Yes I think you are right that its linked to the author details- I'll watch that for the future

Does anyone have an opinion about the validity of point 4 of their claim

Understood regarding e mail disclosure to claimant by direct contact- very good point

However reviewing the AOS summary doc it looks like an auto fill function on my data entry had included my e mail address in the contact details as well as my telephone number

Is this a cause for concern or is it only the court that sees this information?

Thinking about it I think it has simply pulled this information from my Government gateway log in detail which requires e mail and tel number for communication and verification purposes 

DX, Thanks for reiterating the need to read all of your post, I am know at home on the computer as opposed to the phone and can see the full response more easily.

I note you confirmed not to tick the jurisdiction box- Thankyou for that

I clicked through to the other thread you included and have the template for the CPR31 letter, does this need to be sent hard copy- I assume so as I do not have an e mail address for the lawyers. Can it wait until I am back from holiday? I assume the expectation is that they don't respond anyway and this builds further mitigation in the event it did ever get to a court hearing ?

Thanks for confirmation that I should 'defend all on the AOS 

BUT

Do I tick to say I will contest jurisdiction, having read up on it a bit, I think not

Coming back to the generic defence response should I add a point relating to their particular No 4 stating that I agreed to pay? where do they gleam this idea from or is it assumed somehow- is it standard wording used in these sorts of clams that should be contested at a later step or is it worth pointing out that its an incorrect statement and therefore possibly and inaccurate and false or inadmissible claim?

Dx in reponse to your question- No I am not away on the 29th and will be back at home from the 15th

I've been on the AOS site and just want to confirm

In the intention box do we agree that I need to tick the box which states I intend to defend all of the claim

What about the jurisdiction box- do I click to say I intend to contest the jurisdiction- this does not how as mandatory at this stage but while I'm logged in, I just wanted to confirm what the advice was

Thanks

HI Dave, Thanks for the feedback, I'll look into acknowledging this evening, how does this buy extra time though?

Appreciate you converting the file, I've tried to ensure my info hasn't been on any attachments but have failed a number of times, I though this one was clean or was it the word file info details that gave it away ?

In terms of response by the 29th, I've looked at the various thread and think that the below is what is generally recommended to add in the court defence papers - am I correct, is this still the most up to date advice

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4.  The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle].

2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant.

3.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 

4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant.

5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 

6.  The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

Which Court have you received the claim from ?

County Court Business Centre

4th Floor St Katherines House

21-27 St Katherines St

Northampton NN1 2LH

It does refer to WWW.MONEYCLAIMS.SERVICE.GOV.UK ?

Name of the Claimant :

One Parking solution

95 Arundel Rd

Worthing

W Sussex

WA7 1UG

Claimants Solicitors: 

DCB Legal 

Runcorn 

WA7 1UG- Strange that this is the same as the OPS Worthing Postcode ?

Date of issue – 28 JUL 2022

Date for AOS - Monday 15th August 2022

Date to submit Defence - Monday 29th August 2022

What is the claim for – 

1. The defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a parking charge(s) issued to vehicle xxxxxx at Vantage Point , Brighton BN1 4GW

2. The PCN details are 14/04/2021 xxxxxxxx

3. The PCN(s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C. The vehicle was parked in breach of the terms on C's signs (the Contract) thus incurring the PCN(s)

4.The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. D is liable as the driver or keeper. Despite requests, the PCN(s) is outstanding . The contract entitles C to claim damages.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages

2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.02 until judgement or sooner payment

3. Costs and court fees

What is the value of the claim?

£272.64

Amount Claimed  £187.64

court fees £35

legal rep fees £50

Total Amount £272.64

Hi HB, Thanks for your quick reply, I'm pretty sure I did fill in that form when first creating the query and starting this thread, I could retrieve it and re post it if required but the advice to date I assumed had been based on those initial responses?

Essentially I was collecting and loading a bike from the shop which was less than 20m from the car park, due to Covid it was a 1 in one out policy so I had to queue and was in the shop for longer than the process should normally take. Several have pointed out that loading is not parking and we are talking about 17 mins vs the 10 or 12mins grace period, There are question marks about the adequacy of signage, font size etc and from council searches I couldn't find any applications for signage having been made.

They seem to have followed all the required protocol in terms of their letter structure and did issue a LBC which I replied to with the forums help.

Despite that they have seen fit to take it to court, is this an unusual step, I read that many operators give up after numerous letters and LBC rejections.

I think we did point out in the response that they couldn't claim more than the £100 original claim yet they still include their £70 unicorn tax and interest on top

As this is potentially more serious and there is the potential of a CCJ against my name, I am keen to get this right and issue an uncontestable defence with your assistance

Thanks in advance

OK folks, This issue seems to have taken a more formal turn insomuch as I have received a claim form from the county court Northampton!!
Says I have 14 days to respond and I'm off holiday tomorrow for a wk, I think I can apply for extension if I need in order to prepare a defence

Need your help and advice here please- I am expecting that after all the previous advice that I do need to prepare a defence

Extract of particulars of claim attached- Not sure about point 4 where it suggests I agreed to pay in 28 days - this was never mentioned

I assume you are all familiar with the options for response and associated pack but include a snapshot of that page also

OPS court claim 280722.pdf

Appreciate your in depth response and I fully agree that this whole sham of an industry is operating in a parallel universe reliant on fear factor to trick the unsuspecting public into paying extortionate and baseless charges which only encourages them to perpetuate their behaviour!

Interesting that the case they quote is not relevant but again this is scare tactics

Thanks for the reassurance, I did look up the case you mention re loading, Seems that it had to go to appeal to be overturned but still the right outcome!

Thanks for your feedback so sit tight - will do !

No not in this pack, Just a copy of the original NTK from Apr 21 and a Final demand from May21 both of which are included in this thread. The jump to £170 came when it was handed to ZZPS in June 21 who showed the addition of a £70 admin fee for late payment and debt recovery fees. It then went to £182 with letters from QDR solicitors in  Jul and Aug 21. Back to £100 in October in a letter from OPS and a return to £170 with numerous letters from DCBL bailiffs and then legal over 6 letters from Nov 21 to now including this latest one.

Hope others can comment and advise on any action required

Hi Folks, so the long running saga continues, latest comms after my letter in response to their LOC is a raft of paper from DCB Legal containing a copy of all the letters they have sent me over the last 15 months, along with lots of photos of my car and blown up photos of the notices around the car park and the pay and display machine ( albeit not the machine on the level which I was on ?) The covering letter is attached. I'm not really sure what to make of it?

They are saying the charge is correctly issued and owed- of course they would.

They state its private land- does that make a difference?

They've been instructed to act for their client

They seem to justify the additional costs as being valid and cite a court case

It states if not paid within 30 days that a claim will be issued without further notice

I guess its the last point that gives cause for concern, is this a further LOC then? What's the collective advice on how to react ?

Thanks in advance

2022-06-15 DCBL response.pdf

Thanks as always for your helpful comments folks, Understand the fine line approach and whilst a valid point I agree the POFA aspects are best kept in our pocket for future use if needed- I think yuo were referring to Posts 58 & 59 FTM Dave, On my feed I make this one number 62. Captured  the addition of holiday and copy to OPS ,so for completeness, Here's where I've got to:

Letter of Claim dated 25^th April 2022

Many thanks for your LOC.  I rolled around on the floor in mirth at the idea you actually thought I'd take it seriously and cough up.

I was not parked but loading at the time referred to in your punitive claim, which was a protracted process due to the COVID restrictions in force at the time. You might have been aware that there was a pandemic ravaging the globe and while lots of businesses went under and most councils showed leniency in charges and rules, you and your parasite peers seem to have ramped up your activities in pursuit of unsuspecting members of the public during a period of high stress and human suffering.

Now you know and I know and now you know that I know all the reasons why your set up at Vantage Point is complete pants. In fact it should be renamed ‘taking ad-vantage point’

Regarding the £70 Unicorn Food Tax, here is some homework for you and your greedy clients.  Go and look up Point 9 of the government's Code of Practice.  Good luck getting away with that one in front of a judge!

You can either drop this foolishness now or get a complete hammering in court, the choice is yours.  If you continue I will of course enjoy obtaining an unreasonable costs order against you under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and spending the dosh on a nice foreign holiday while all the time having a great laugh at your expense.

I look forward to your deafening silence.

COPIED TO ONE PARKING SOLUTION

How's about this for a starter- Too much detail ??

Many thanks for your LOC.  I rolled around on the floor in mirth at the idea you actually thought I'd take it seriously and cough up.

I was not parked but loading at the time referred to in your punitive claim, which was a protracted process due to the COVID restrictions in force at the time. You might have been aware that there was a pandemic ravaging the globe and while lots of businesses went under and most councils showed leniency in charges and rules, you and your parasite peers seem to have ramped up your activities in pursuit of unsuspecting members of the public during a period of high stress and suffering.

Now you know and I know and now you know that I know all the reasons why your set up at Vantage Point is complete pants. In fact it should be renamed ‘taking ad-vantage point’

Regarding the £70 Unicorn Food Tax, here is some homework for you and your greedy clients.  Go and look up Point 9 of the government's Code of Practice.  Good luck getting away with that one in front of a judge!

You can either drop this foolishness now or get a complete hammering in court, the choice is yours.  If you continue I will of course enjoy obtaining an unreasonable costs order against you under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and spending the dosh on a nice foreign while all the time having a great laugh at your expense.

I look forward to your deafening silence.

Thanks Dave, Wow- Yes Point 9, does spell it our quite clearly but I guess this process started before the official ruling,  I assume its not advisable mentioning that in the letter as it makes even more of a mockery of the claim if they ever did really take it forward

Hello all, The saga continues and here we have an LOC which I think is the point at which we gear up for a snotty letter ? IF so is the advice to reply towards the end of the 30 day window

2022-04-25 DCBL LOC.pdf

Yes that the one Zydeco, Seems they re following their tried and tested approach- lets hope this saga follows the same pattern as yours. Appreciate the feedback

Uploading letter referred to in the last few posts for completeness

2022-02-04 DCBL.pdf

So I sent the snotty letter as agreed and have received the attached in response, It says they want payment in 14 days to prevent further action- I'm assuming the advice is to ignore this deadline and not to respond?

2022-02-10 Parking eye response to snotty letter.pdf

Thanks so much for your replies guys, Much appreciated and kicks it down the road a but further.

I think it was the way they titled the letter that made me doubt myself.

I imagine many others have lost their bottle at this stage and paid up which is why they keep on with the harassment tactics! I've lost count of how any letters I've received from various parties regarding this issue and just when I think they've given up another one lands on the door mat,

I hope it follows the same pattern as you have experienced Zydeco and these companies cease their parasitic activities!!

Hello, I Received another letter today from DCBL titled 'Notice of intended legal action' Should I take this as the equivalent of a LBA or LBC and prepare a snotty letter first line of response or maintain silence??

It states "we have now referred the matter to our client to review commencing legal action"

I'll upload it in the next days but compared to the LBC I received for another case , it doesn't indicate that I need to respond within 30 days or include a response pack with how to pay etc. The other case is with Parking eye and I assume not all companies take the same approach

Appreciate your valued advice/ guidance

Thanks for the advice, so now the full proposed response below, Just one question on the phrasing of who was using the car- Are any of the 2 suggestions below OK or do you have a better 

SENDERS ADDRESS

TOWN

POSTCODE

Dear Parking Eye,

Re: PCN no. xxxxxx Letter Before County Court Claim

Many thanks for your LBC.  I rolled around on the floor in mirth at the idea you actually thought I'd take it seriously and cough up.

A person in the vehicle was an NHS patient that day and I can prove it.

Or

The car was being used by someone who was an NHS patient on that day and I can prove it

Now you know and I know and now you know that I know all the reasons why your set up at 175 Preston Road is complete pants.

You can either drop this foolishness now or get a complete hammering in court, the choice is yours.  If you continue I will of course add xxxxxxx Medical Centre as a third party to the claim and then enjoy obtaining an unreasonable costs order against both of you under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and spending the dosh on a nice foreign holiday now that borders are reopening while all the time having a great laugh at your expense.

I look forward to your deafening silence.

 MY NAME

COPIED TO xxxxxxxxx MEDICAL CENTRE

Having thought about the response to the LBC, I think the draft as kindly offered by FTM Dave is pithy and direct enough to send the message without need for any further embellishment, As I mentioned I plan to post it next week so just ask a few points of guidance please

-Do I add a name and address of the sender at the top of the letter?

-Do I need to add 'Without prejudice' ???

-If adding details of sender, Should the letter be from myself as the owner or or my wife as the driver and patient- this may change the text of who was the legitimate NHS patient but I don't think that's an issue is it ?

-Should it be signed ?

Thanks in advance