Backdoor CCJ OPS/DCB(L) 2017 Windscreen PCN - got set aside - awaiting hearing date- Outside lines - Vantage point , brighton ***Claim Dismissed***

[brassnecked]

Yes they are scared that your defence is sound and they are going to lose, they can't even get the document format right,  PFD Format think they mean PDF.  Best course is to  tell them you are not accepting ANY documentation by Email in any format.

[honeybee13]

Hi.

 

We've had a reported post from you saying you have a court case now and need guidance.

 

If you've received a claim form, please let us have the information requested in the forum sticky and we'll take it from there.

 

B

H

 

 

[dx100uk]

new hearing as your set aside was successful and the fleecers have refused to consent foc to you.

 

you should have had a n180DQ and poss an n157 too.

we need to see what the judge has ordered , be done WS/statement?

[Rmg2020]

Hello, 

 

thank you for reopening this thread. 

 

so I filed a N180 form a while back and have received a hearing date allocated to the small claims track for the end of November. attached is the judge's direction for hearing. 

 

Their legal firm contacted me today to ask if i wanted to settle out of court and pay £217 .. based on prevous advise on here am not taking that up. 

commission.pdf

[dx100uk]

so witness/statement time.

 

 

[FTMDave]

As the directions state, Witness Statements to be exchanged no less than 14 days before the hearing.  Have a search, there are some cracking Witness Statements you can use on here as a basis for yours.

[Rmg2020]

Am panicking.  The statements am seeing all sound very professional and am not good with my words! 

Whats the worst that can happen if I go back to their settle out of court offer with a counter offer ?

[dx100uk]

God no you dont do that

 

a ws does not have to contain legalese at all. You are a LiP so its not expected to be that way

 

Dx

[FTMDave]

The court won't look badly on you negotiating, indeed the parties are encouraged to negotiate.  But beware you are dealing with liars and conmen who will try to trick you into paying, and obviously you must never admit in writing to actually being liable for their invoice.

 

However, if you go down the road you are suggesting, you will throw away any chance of them discontinuing the case as they will immediately see you as someone certain to pay.

 

dx is right, none of the WSs you've read were "professional", they were written by ordinary people who got these tickets and did a bit of research to fight back. 

 

If you are the sort of person tempted to give in, surely the time to give in was when they wanted £60, not now.

 

When I knock off work this evening I'll read through your thread from the start and try to point you in the direction of useful WSs.

[brassnecked]

The fleecers also shoot themselves in the foot with over verbose WS, quoying cases with absolutely no relevance, they even still try it on with Elliott V Loake and CPS v AJH Films if they fall doewn with Keeper Liability under POFA, both cases irrelevant to a Parking case,  Elliott is Criminal case so no bearing in a civil claim to prove who is driver, and AJH is about employer/employee. Little to fear and you will get help and suggestions here.  Just don't be taken in by them, lying is more second nature to them than it is to Boris Johnson.

[FTMDave]

Have a look at the WS in Alaska101's thread  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421775-vcs-spycar-pcn-paploc-now-claimform-no-stopping-east-midlands-airport/page/5/#comments  It should be at post 110 but if you can't find it there look at the posts immediately above/below.  The post starts "Thank you guys".  Look at the way Alaska101 has numbered the paragraphs and put a title for each legal argument.  You need to do something similar so all is clear for the judge.  Something like - 

 

Sequence of events - you parked, you paid, after you got a PCN, then threatening letters, you moved, you discovered you had a default CCJ, you got it set aside.

 

No locus standi - OPS are not the land owners, you believe they have no right to sue you (this section will have to be extremely generic at the moment and ready to be changed when they send their WS.  Or did they send one first time round?  If so, please upload it).

 

No keeper liability - they are suing the wrong person, they should be suing the driver, you are only the keeper of the car, they have not established keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (again, this will need to be changed when we get to see their WS).

 

No breach of contract - you paid, you did nothing wrong, you did not overstay the time you'd paid for.

 

Unreasonable conditions - their PCN is for not parking in a marked bay, but there are no marked bays to park in, indeed the car park resembles Brighton town tip, it's clear OPS have no interest in running the car park properly but just want to issue PCNs.

 

Planning Permission/Breach of Code of Practise - you do not believe they have PP for their signs, this is a criminal offence and makes it impossible for a contract to be entered into, it is also a breach of their Code of Practise where they promise to apply for all legal permissions (I'm assuming in the last 16 months you've looked up the PP element).

 

Double Recovery - here you can use nigh-on verbatim paragraphs 18, 20-26 of Alaska101's WS.

 

So flesh out the points I've made, when you have time, in your own words, as dx says no need for legalese, and post it up.  You did nothing wrong.  You don't owe these fleecers a penny.  No way should you be willing to negotiate a settlement with them.  They've already made you pay £255.  Concentrate on smashing them in this case first, then later on we can plan how to get your £255 back, but that is for later.

[Rmg2020]

thank you

i havent had a witness statement from them, but i have their witness statement from the set aside . its a very large document and i cant post it on here 20 +mb this is the written part .

i will figure out a way to add the rest if its important?

 

 

 

Claimants WS.pdf

[dx100uk]

converted your docx to PDF and merged other PDF to one claimants WS above.

 

docx has all your pers details in file properties/info!

always use PDF.

 

no proof of annual contract payment since 2016 then!! to prove its still valid....

 

[Rmg2020]

i received their witness statement today! hopefully this time i have redacted everything properly. 

thank you for hiding the previous!

am going to make a start on my WS today. 

 

Full bundle pag (1).pdf

[FTMDave]

Their WS is cut & paste tripe, includes nothing that can harm your case, and seems to have been signed by a five-year-old with a crayon.

 

In (22 iv) and (22 v) they admit there were no marked bays!

 

dx has cast doubt on their carppy contract.

 

So include all this in your WS draft when you have time.

[brassnecked]

The no marked bay s make it difficult to claim you have breached anything.

[Rmg2020]

Hi , thank you so much for all your help so far . i have left this WS very late and need to submit it today (10th ) or tomorrow at the latest .

 

i fear if i copy too much from other WS with court cases and am asked about it in court i wont be able to reply as they are too confusing! 

 

i cant see on their WS how much they are claiming for, the original claim form i have has the amout of 211.21 plus court fees and legal rep fees and that is the amount i put in WS 

 

they claim in their WS that they can ask for more money as this isnt their usual business - that's made me angry . do i need to address that in my WS ? 

 

 

defendants WS.pdf

Edited November 11, 2021 by dx100uk
upload was docx now pdf

[dx100uk]

cant hurt you to be a day later to get it right

you are a LiP (Litigant in person) joe public against the system and have leeway. but dont take the ....

 

 

[FTMDave]

11 hours ago, Rmg2020 said:

i have left this WS very late

Yes, you have.  Why?

 

You've already been through the set aside battle, a lot of the legal arguments (not all) could easily have been prepared months ago and last Friday I tried to set out what you needed to prepare.

 

I have a full day of work tomorrow, no doubt you have too and the same goes for most of the regulars.  We can't magically be free to prepare a whole WS, an uncomplicated but by necessity quite long legal document.

 

As dx says, the courts will allow you some flexibility, but please get on with it.

[Rmg2020]

I understand. It is what it is. Life doesn't run smoothly. 

If you guys have time to look at the WS great if not it's all good too. 

[lookinforinfo]

Rmg2020 I am not sure where you get the idea that OPS sold on your alleged debt to any debt collector or solicitor. Even now it is OPS taking you to Court which they would have unable to do had they sold on the debt. So there is little point in making those points in your WS. 

 

But here are observations of how to argue your case .

 

What you can do is to show up just to show the lack of lines where you parked so as it was unclear that there were lines to be parked within.

 

On not  a single photo of your car are there any lines around your car.

You cannot park within invisible lines .

The only lines that are visible are the joins between the concrete sections and you are perfectly parked within them and it was entirely reasonable to think that they were the lines within which to park..

 

So no offence committed.

On top of that your own photos show the shambles that is their car park and loads of places where the lines had virtually disappeared over time and defies belief that they were prohibited parking areas especially as there was no indication that parking was not allowed there. 

 

[I notice that they do not show areas where the car park has clear lines to park within. If you think that the parts of the car park that they have not shown are not particularly clear, you could put them to strict proof that they can show that they are clear and that the photos are very recent so that cannot show photos of the car park years ago when the lines would have been fresh.]

 

Even the company have accepted that where you parked, the lines were faint so reasonable to assume that they were originally designed to be car parking places. So there is no indication that they are still not currently in use. 

 

The font size on the signage is too small.

You would have thought that OPS would have managed to produce a legible sign-even at 175% magnification their sign on page 17 is mostly illegible as far as their T&Cs are concerned.

 

No evidence of what  sign is showing at the entrance-is it the same sign as on page 17?

Then it cannot be read in a car on entering.

Too many words and font too small.

Or is it just a sign advising motorists that they are entering private land?

 

Either way, the sign cannot offer a contract on entry just an invitation to treat. 

 

The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 s8 [2] [f]. which states :

 

(f)warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given—

 

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (d)) has not been paid in full, and

 

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

 

Your PCN includes "assuming the keeper is the driver " and omitting (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)

 

In this section of PoFA the regulations are that the wording must contain the words on PoFA which theirs do not.

That means they cannot pursue you as the keeper and the Court will not allow the assumption that the keeper and the driver are one and the same.

 

Anybody with car insurance can drive your car.

[Please note that if you were the driver you cannot say you weren't but you if asked you can say that you are not required under the Regulations to reveal who was driving.].

 

The contract looks ok other than to say that it has not been properly executed as the position of the signees to the contract have  not been stated in contravention of the Companies Act 2006.

 

The above should strengthen your case against them but please remove  all references to the Law of Property Act.

Edited November 11, 2021 by dx100uk
spacing

[dx100uk]

docx file of defendants ws converted to pdf

docx shows all your pers details. in file info/properties.

where you are referring in red to a differing page within your ws forget it..only makes the ws circular and confusing to a judge.

only ever point to your exhibits.

think the ws is rather disjointed too.

[FTMDave]

I can look through the WS late this evening but not before.

[FTMDave]

I've just managed to have a quick read through your WS, and it's not bad at all.  You could send it off today after making the changes LFI suggests.  If you think an extra 24 hours' delay is OK, I can go through it with a fine tooth comb but late this evening and suggest improvements.  Please let us know what you decide.

[brassnecked]

With LFI's amendments looks good to go but as LFI indicates a Parking debt cannot be sold or transfwerred out to a third Party, so DCBL etc were acting on behalf of the fleecer as a DCA.