Tweet
Hey,
Hoping to get some help with a court claim I received after ignoring letters for a parking charge please!
On 22nd July 2018 my car was left in an NCP car park. The driver was a couple of minutes over the 10 mins that they will let you off and received a letter from them in the post requesting £60! Which was utterly ridiculous and after browsing the web constantly saw the advice to just ignore at all costs.
I then received letters from BW legal chasing even more debt and again ignored.
On 4th Decemer BW Legal sent me a 'letter of claim' stating that I now owe £160 or legal action will be taken, I did not actually get this letter until today as I have moved out of my parents and these letters have been going to their house!
Along with this was a claim form dated 24 Jan 19 from 'County Court Business Centre' including a moneyclaim link etc to log into. The charges are now listed as follows:
Amount claimed £167.44
Court Fee £25
Legal rep costs £50
Total £242.44
I have completed the acknowledgement of service and have started to draft a defence, please can this be reviewed and advice given as I have no idea what I am doing and can in no way pay those ludicrous above charges,:
DEFENCE
1. The defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim due to the reasons explained in the below defence.
2. The defendant believes that the signs of terms and conditions fail the test of ‘large lettering’ and prominence, as established in the ParkingEye V Beavis case. Terms and conditions not seen by driver on entry and are in very small print. The terms on the date were not seen, therefore the elements of a binding contract on any known charges are absent.
3. On further investigation the defendant has come to doubt there being relevant planning permission for the pole-mounted ANPR camera on site on the date of the accused contravention (22/07/18) or for the advertisement consent for the associated contractual signage in and around the site in question. If this was not in place than this would make the request of details from DLVA void. As there was a witness present in the vehicles at all times the defendant is certain that there was no ticket officer present to otherwise support this claim.
4. As outlined in the British Parking Association Code of Practice section 13 a fair grace period is to be applied. Within the first correspondence from National Car Parks, the time stated is merely minutes over the ten minute minimum, the defendant is not certain of the validity of the ANPR timings as they and the mentioned witness both note this to be a very short time in the mentioned site and do not believe this to have breached the grace period.
5. It is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
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, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.
I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge.
Signed
Date
Is this ok to send as it stands?
Just a note, am never using NCP again and also now know not to ignore til it gets to this stage so have learnt my lesson!
Hoping to get some help with a court claim I received after ignoring letters for a parking charge please!
On 22nd July 2018 my car was left in an NCP car park. The driver was a couple of minutes over the 10 mins that they will let you off and received a letter from them in the post requesting £60! Which was utterly ridiculous and after browsing the web constantly saw the advice to just ignore at all costs.
I then received letters from BW legal chasing even more debt and again ignored.
On 4th Decemer BW Legal sent me a 'letter of claim' stating that I now owe £160 or legal action will be taken, I did not actually get this letter until today as I have moved out of my parents and these letters have been going to their house!
Along with this was a claim form dated 24 Jan 19 from 'County Court Business Centre' including a moneyclaim link etc to log into. The charges are now listed as follows:
Amount claimed £167.44
Court Fee £25
Legal rep costs £50
Total £242.44
I have completed the acknowledgement of service and have started to draft a defence, please can this be reviewed and advice given as I have no idea what I am doing and can in no way pay those ludicrous above charges,:
DEFENCE
1. The defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim due to the reasons explained in the below defence.
2. The defendant believes that the signs of terms and conditions fail the test of ‘large lettering’ and prominence, as established in the ParkingEye V Beavis case. Terms and conditions not seen by driver on entry and are in very small print. The terms on the date were not seen, therefore the elements of a binding contract on any known charges are absent.
3. On further investigation the defendant has come to doubt there being relevant planning permission for the pole-mounted ANPR camera on site on the date of the accused contravention (22/07/18) or for the advertisement consent for the associated contractual signage in and around the site in question. If this was not in place than this would make the request of details from DLVA void. As there was a witness present in the vehicles at all times the defendant is certain that there was no ticket officer present to otherwise support this claim.
4. As outlined in the British Parking Association Code of Practice section 13 a fair grace period is to be applied. Within the first correspondence from National Car Parks, the time stated is merely minutes over the ten minute minimum, the defendant is not certain of the validity of the ANPR timings as they and the mentioned witness both note this to be a very short time in the mentioned site and do not believe this to have breached the grace period.
5. It is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
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, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.
I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge.
Signed
Date
Is this ok to send as it stands?
Just a note, am never using NCP again and also now know not to ignore til it gets to this stage so have learnt my lesson!
Comment