KBT Cornwall ltd/BW ANPR PCN Claimform - (Sennan Top CarPark) Mayon Green Tr19 7St cornwall ***Claim Dismissed***

[scotswestie]

Whicth Court have you received the claim From ? MCOL Northampton 

Name of the Claimant : KBT CORNWALL LIMITED

Claimants Solicitors: BW LEGAL., ENTERPRISE HOUSE. 1 APEX VIEW LEEDS LSII 98H.

Dare of issue - 13/12/2022

defence date · 13/01/2023

1. The claim is tor the sum of £103 being due to the defendant in respect of a Parking charge notice (PCN) ror a contractual breach which occurred on 21/06/2022 in the private car parkland at Mayon Green Tr19 7St In relation to (CAR) 

2.The PCN was Issued as the driver failed to comply with the terms and conditions as displayed.

3. Despite demands, the charge remains unpaid

4 The claim also includes Statutory interest pursuant to section 69 or thecounty courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annumm (a daily rate of £0.02) from 21/06/2022 to 12/12/2022 being an amount of £3.50

The Claimant also Claims £60.00 recovery costs as set out in the terms and conditions and in the ATA code of Practice
 

 

Hi Got papers in post.  

 

I was not in country when invoice generated also not the driver, obviously.

 

Any advice welcome.

Scan Info CC Docs.pdf

[FTMDave]

Good grief.  Have you acknowledged service?

[scotswestie]

Hi yes I have, got them on 13 Dec 2022. AoS 19/12/2022.

 

I think got until 16/01/23 to submit defence. 

[FTMDave]

Sigh of relief time!

 

I think the deadline is 14 January.  You have a week.

 

Can you tell us please, with brief bullet points, how you ended up with the court case and which paperwork you have received so far.

[scotswestie]

I have downloaded a copy off the Court Documents to the site.  I put copy off what their claim is also.

 

I will download the NTK,  I’m in town at present. 
 

my points are factually.

 

• I was not the driver.
• I was not in country at the time stated on Documents.
• other persons had use off car whilst I was abroad.

I appreciate any advice on any others angle off defence. 
 

thanks

SW

 

This is Notice to Keeper.

NOTICE TO KEEPER. DONE.pdf

[FTMDave]

I remember you and your previous thrashing of Simple Simon in court, so you know the ropes very well.

 

Don't worry about the initial defence, we have a bland template which covers all cases.

 

It having been impossible for you to be the driver will help, although the fleecers have respected POFA time frames this time for transferring liability to the keeper.

 

A number of questions spring to mind.

 

What actually happened?  The fleecers can't be bothered to say with their either/or PCN.  Did the driver not pay or pay & overstay?

 

Did they send a Letter of Claim?  If so why was it not replied to? (obviously you were out of the country, I mean by the person who was driving).

[scotswestie]

Hi, I was unwell for a few months. So I was not on top off things like I usually am.

There was three persons who could drive they car whilst I was away. 

 

I think they did not pay, that is only my assumption. I am texting one but they are in Philippines. 
 

I can’t establish whom was driving.  I will check my mail to see If LBC was sent. 
 

I have sent a SAR to their DPO, just awaiting a reply. I’m a bit hamstrung, as I was not there, and it’s 300 miles from my location. 
 

I believe there was a big stink at this car park in July 2022, about problems with machine, only asked for first three numbers of Reg, then they ticketed people for not putting in complete reg, that might be what happened. It was in national press. 
 

I will keep thinking as what to do   
 

regards,

 

SW 
 

 

[FTMDave]

And you are right!

 

 

[dx100uk]

can you copy and paste the text of those answers to our sticky to your thread please not as a PDF

 

[scotswestie]

I have downloaded a copy off the Court Documents to the site.  I put copy off what their claim is also.

 

I will download the NTK,  I’m in town at present. 
 

my points are factually.

 

• I was not the driver.
• I was not in country at the time stated on Documents.
• other persons had use off car whilst I was abroad.

I appreciate any advice on any others angle off defence. 
 

thanks

SW
 

hi Dx100uk. I did that is post 1, will I have to put it in word doc style?
 

regards,

 

SW 

 

I’m getting confused how to reply here. 

 

I’m bit tired will do send info soon as possible. 
 

regards.

 

SW 

[dx100uk]

1 hour ago, scotswestie said:

hi Dx100uk. I did that is post 1, will I have to put it in word doc style?
 

neither

copy and paste the text into a msg box here 

[FTMDave]

Well, the time frames would match.  Date of "offence" 21 June 2022.

 

These newspaper articles 1 & 2 July 2022.

 

However, we need to know what the driver actually did, and if they have proof of payment.

[dx100uk]

questionnaire added to post 1

[scotswestie]

I have downloaded a copy off the Court Documents to the site.  I put copy off what their claim is also.

 

I will download the NTK,  I’m in town at present. 
 

my points are factually.

 

• I was not the driver.
• I was not in country at the time stated on Documents.
• other persons had use off car whilst I was abroad.

I appreciate any advice on any others angle off defence. 
 

thanks

SW

 

hi do I send my defence here [email protected] when I have finalised it ? 
 

regards,

 

SW

[dx100uk]

no you post it up here for checking.

 

 

[FTMDave]

The defence part is easy as scribbled before, you just file a generic defence.

 

Go to  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/393251-received-a-court-claim-from-a-private-parking-speculative-invoice-how-to-deal-with-it-hereupdated-dec-2021/

 

Scroll down to  Q2) How should I defend?

 

There is the defence.

 

1 hour ago, scotswestie said:

• I was not the driver.
• I was not in country at the time stated on Documents.
• other persons had use off car whilst I was abroad.

Yes, you keep stating this.  But later down the line the fleecers will retort "Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act gives us the right to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper".

 

This is a beauty spot.  People go there for a day out.  It's not like popping to the supermarket.  It's inconceivable that the driver can't remember what happened.  Did they pay or not?  If so, did they overstay?  Or did they get caught out by the three digits business?  If they paid, how did they pay?   

[scotswestie]

This is my initial defence statement, any suggestions would be welcome.

 

Re PCN number: J4DP2V0E

 

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

 

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn.

 

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 PK18DXJ 

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.

 

This issue arose in July 2022. This site Mayon Green was at the centre of a bogus and potentially fraudulent issue of alleged PCN to unsuspecting motorists. The signs and equipment that they now say formed a contract were saying different things to the consumer/motorist.  They were told to put the first three digits of their car registration into machine. This they did.  Then 2 to three weeks later they got a PCN through the post informing them they had breached the terms and condition, whilst parking at this site.  The reason for the breach, they had failed to put their complete car registration into machine.  This is after the machine had instructed them to put only the fist three digits.

 

When this became public they blamed the landowner/Client for install the machines without informing them. So who is responsible for day to day running of the site, who do you form a contract with? 

 

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.

 

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. 

 

 

[dx100uk]

No 

 

Just use our default defence further down the court questionnaire you filled out 

 

Dx

[scotswestie]

I have downloaded a copy off the Court Documents to the site.  I put copy off what their claim is also.

 

I will download the NTK,  I’m in town at present. 
 

my points are factually.

 

• I was not the driver.
• I was not in country at the time stated on Documents.
• other persons had use off car whilst I was abroad.

I appreciate any advice on any others angle off defence. 
 

thanks

SW

 

Dx, do you mean this one. 
 

Re PCN number: J4DP2V0E

 

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 PK18DXJ

 

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.

 

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. 

 

 

[scotswestie]

When I have finalised the defence do I put it on MCOL?

 

regards 

 

SW. 

[dx100uk]

Use the std defence only in our questionnaire you filled out 

 

Dx

[scotswestie]

Hi Dx that is the only one I can find!

[dx100uk]

The last paragraph is from a witness statement not needed on mcol for a defence 

 

Dx

[scotswestie]

Can you post it up for me, I’ve looked all over for it. 
 

thanks,

 

SW. 

[FTMDave]

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 XXXXX.

 

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.