Court Claim - Parking Charge Notice

[MIKE770]

No they would hope you have in. THEY y the enemy. Your defence goes in 28 days from date of court action firm. Lol around before you mistakes are made slow down and tell us what it is about

[ostell]

No! It's gone to court!! That's where the form came from!

No point in hoping the solicitor will cancel it.

Wait for 5 days after issue date and acknowledge the claim using the details and password on the form. Nothing in the defence. This gives you 33 days from the date of issue to get your defence to the court.

There is a sample defence in the shortcuts panel, though it's for financial problems but you get the idea. Start writing it, I gave you some starters. Post it here for critique before you send it to the court

[HansZimmer1]

Thank you for the reply!

Sorry for my ignorance - is this a physical visit or just through the forms/online?

[ostell]

It will, eventually, end up with a physical visit to your local court but not for a long time, and not before exchanging a lot of paperwork.

[HansZimmer1]

https://ibb.co/L9h1rZ1
https://ibb.co/n1qcK73

Here's the images of the signage in the car park

[ostell]

What a revelation! Please check carefully for me. The claimant on the form is Minster Baywatch and yet, though there is a small sign for them, the wording on another part of the sign says "This car park is managed by Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions Ltd." They also state that "Bransby Wilson and the owners are not liable for damage......" I think it's a fair chance that any court will agree that MB are not the contractors.

On companies House they are two separate companies though they do share directors. They've dropped a clanger here.

So the first part of of your defence will be that you have no contract with the claimant and therefore they are unjustly claiming against you for no reason at all.

Later on in the defence you ask the court to reject the claim and because of their unreasonableness you ask for all your costs.

Get an email off to the DVLA asking who requested your car details. SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gov.uk They may be a bit slow at the moment.

[HansZimmer1]

Lovely stuff! Yes it is Bransby Wilson that's plastered on the machine and signage.

I've sent the email to DVLA

Thank you for your help so far.

[ostell]

Don't miss the court deadlins

[HansZimmer1]

I've acknowledged the court form online, will be making a start on my defence tonight so will send over ASAP.

[ostell]

On here first for critique

My thinking of the claim is that if BM requested your details from THE DVLA when they had no reasonable cause then they are in serious breach of the GDPR and a counterclaim of, say, £600 for the breach would be in order. A counter claim has to go in at the same time as your defence and I hope others more experienced than me will assist if required.

[HansZimmer1]

Is the below OK for a start? Thanks in advance,

On 26/08/2020 I, the vehicles keeper, received a Notice to Keeper letter from Minster Baywatch Ltd (the claimant) for a Parking Charge Notice requesting a payment of £100. I was not the driver as I was at work during the time frame of the alleged infringement.

After examining the signage in the car park, it would appear the claimant cannot be Minster Baywatch, as the text clearly states the car park is managed by Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions Ltd, therefore I have no contract with the claimant and therefore they are unjustly claiming against the keeper for no reason at all.

On 27/08/2020 the driver identified themselves to Minster Baywatch as requested.

Minster Baywatch were also given the driver's address details on 24/09/2020 so then I, the keeper, has no liability as condition 5 (1) (b) of POFA is no longer true.

The claimant can no longer claim from the keeper as condition (5) (1) (b) has not been met.

Even if that condition were met the claimant has also incorrectly stated the requirements of the invitation to keeper in the format prescribed by 9 (2) (e)

There is also no period of parking required by 9 (2) (a). Moving in front of a camera cannot by definition be parking.

I ask the court to reject the claim and because of their unreasonableness I ask for all of my costs to be covered.

[ostell]

Could you edit and put some numbers on. Don't forget the statement of truth at the end

Instead of "I" use "the defendant" when possible

[HansZimmer1]

Amended:

Claim No:

the claim number

Minster Baywatch Ltd

Claimant

My Name

Defendant

DEFENCE

1. On 26/08/2020 the defendant, My Name, the vehicles keeper, received a Notice to Keeper letter from Minster Baywatch Ltd (the claimant) for a Parking Charge Notice requesting a payment of £100. I was not the driver as I was at work during the time frame of the alleged infringement.

2. After examining the signage in the car park, it would appear the claimant cannot be Minster Baywatch, as the text clearly states the car park is managed by Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions Ltd, therefore the defendant has no contract with the claimant and therefore they are unjustly claiming against the keeper for no reason at all.

3. On 27/08/2020 the driver identified themselves to the Minster Baywatch as requested.

4. Minster Baywatch were also given the driver's address details on 24/09/2020 so then I, the keeper, has no liability as condition 5 (1) (b) of POFA is no longer true.

5. The claimant can no longer claim from the keeper as condition (5) (1) (b) has not been met.

6. Even if that condition were met the claimant has also incorrectly stated the requirements of the invitation to keeper in the format prescribed by 9 (2) (e)

7. There is also no period of parking required by 9 (2) (a). Moving in front of a camera cannot by definition be parking.

8. The defendant asks the court to reject the claim and because of their unreasonableness I ask for all of my costs to be covered.


Statement of Truth

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Signed ________________________________

Dated ________________________________

[ostell]

insert a 3 and shuffle down: Even if the defendant had a valid contract with the claimant the claimant has no claim against the defendant as the claimant failed to satisfy the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so cannot transfer liability from the driver at the time to the defendant as the keeper

then 4 = 3 (a) 5 = 3 (b) 6 = 3 (c) and 7 = 3 (d)

New 2 Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.

Just edit in situ to avoid using too much space

[HansZimmer1]

Thank you!

Claim No:

Minster Baywatch Ltd

Claimant

My Name

Defendant

DEFENCE

1. On 26/08/2020 the defendant, the vehicles keeper, received a Notice to Keeper letter from Minster Baywatch Ltd (the claimant) for a Parking Charge Notice requesting a payment of £100. The defendant was not the driver as the defendant was at work during the time frame of the alleged infringement.

2. Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.

3. After examining the signage in the car park, it would appear the claimant cannot be Minster Baywatch, as the text clearly states the car park is managed by Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions Ltd, therefore the defendant has no contract with the claimant and therefore they are unjustly claiming against the keeper for no reason at all.

3 (a). Even if the defendant had a valid contract with the claimant the claimant has no claim against the defendant as the claimant failed to satisfy the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so cannot transfer liability from the driver at the time to the defendant as the keeper.

3 (b). On 27/08/2020 the driver identified themselves to Minster Baywatch as requested.

3 (c). Minster Baywatch were also given the driver's address details on 24/09/2020 so then I, the keeper, has no liability as condition 5 (1) (b) of POFA is no longer true.

3 (d). The claimant can no longer claim from the keeper as condition (5) (1) (b) has not been met.

4. Even if that condition were met the claimant has also incorrectly stated the requirements of the invitation to keeper in the format prescribed by 9 (2) (e)

5. There is also no period of parking required by 9 (2) (a). Moving in front of a camera cannot by definition be parking.

6. The defendant asks the court to reject the claim and because of their unreasonableness I ask for all of my costs to be covered.

Statement of Truth

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Signed ________________________________

Dated ________________________________


Is this looking OK? Hoping for a quick reply from the DVLA however will let them off due to the festive period of course!

Thanks again for your help so far, it really is appreciated