Court Claim - Parking Charge Notice

[ostell]

That's about it. Minor detail: 3a should just be 3 as it mentiond POFA fails. THe other paragraphs are subservient to this and should be the next level down. You 4 & 5 are still subservient to 3

[HansZimmer1]

I've been waiting for the DVLA to confirm who requested my details however they've said it can take another month so going to submit without. Please could you kindly check over one final time for any changes needed?

Thank you in advance:

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. I was not the driver as I 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.

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

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

3 (d). 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)

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

3 (f). 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]

1. Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence
2. 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
3. The defendant avers that the claimant is unjustly making the claim as no contract existed between the claimant and the driver,
   1. The signage in the car park the text clearly states the car park is managed by Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions Ltd.
   2. The Payment machine also shows the payment is being made to Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions.
4. The defendant was not the driver..
5. Even if the driver at the time had a valid contract with the claimant, which is denied, the claimant has no claim against the defendant as the claimant failed to satisfy several of the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and so cannot transfer liability from the driver at the time to the defendant as the keeper.
   1. On 27/08/2020 the driver identified themselves to Minster Baywatch as requested.
   2. Minster Baywatch were also given the driver's address details on 24/09/2020 so then the defendant as the keeper, has no liability as condition 5 (1) (b) of POFA is no longer true.
   3. Even if that condition were met the claimant has not given the invitation to keeper in the format prescribed by 9 (2) (e)
   4. 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 claimant has also breached the requirements of the Data Protection Act 2018 by requesting and using the defendants personal data from the DVLA without reasonable cause.
7. The claimant Minster Baywatch Ltd, company number 07517434, and the car park operator Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions, company number 04707572, are separate unrelated legal entities although they share common directors.
8. The defendant asks the court to reject the claim and because of their unreasonableness and asks for all costs to be covered even if the claimant withdraws form the case.

Hope this is an improvement.

[HansZimmer1]

Thank you so much for your help! I've submitted the defence. Will keep you posted!

[HansZimmer1]

Hello,

I've received an email from the claimants solicitors, please see below:

"We act for the Claimant and have notified the Court of the Claimant’s intention to proceed with the Claim.

Please find enclosed a copy of the Claimant’s completed Directions Questionnaire, which has also been filed with the Court.

You will note the Claimant has elected to mediate in an attempt to settle this matter amicably, without the need for further Court intervention. Should you agree to mediation, please inform the Court who will contact both parties to arrange a mediation appointment."

Is the fact they're elected to mediate a sign that they know they're likely to lose the case?

[HansZimmer1]

Hello,

I've received a letter from the DVLA confirming it was Minster Baywatch who requested my details. GDPR breach?

Thank you for any replies

[ostell]

They are hoping you will chicken out at mediation. But you tell them that you did not have a contract with them and therefore no money is owed

Report them to the DVLA for requesting information without good cause.

And mention the DVLA response in your witness statement and the GDPR breach

[HansZimmer1]

Hello,

I've received a date for mediation. Would be really grateful for any advice for this - is it a simple case of reading out my defence in bullet point form?

Thank you

[MIKE770]

No the defence is not the mediation only pointers you may have or request you have not received from otherside, ie, copy od notices etc which you have asked for, even then if that is the case the mediation probably not take place , as they ask you have you everything to mediate? sure Ostelle will comment here soon!

[ostell]

Use the opportunity to point out their was no contract with their clients and the claim is an abuse. Their client appeared on one sign but only in a form that suggested it was an advertisement. Their client has breached GDPR by requesting and using your personal data without reasonable cause. Normally this would be a claim against them for about £500. If you haven't counterclaimed then suggest a drop hands agreement. Both sides walk away and meet their own costs

[HansZimmer1]

Thank you very much! It's tomorrow so I'll let you know the final outcome. Thank you for all of your help

[HansZimmer1]

Hello,

I've just had the mediation call, I put my points across as requested and the solicitors representing the claimant offered a settlement of £150.

They said they were not informed by Minster Baywatch that a third party had come forward on 27/08/2020 identifying themselves as the driver.

They also claimed to be confident that Minster Baywatch are recognised as a management company for the carpark and that no breach of data protection had happened.

This is now going to court.

[ostell]

I think a picture of that sign stating managed by bransby Wilson and the ticket machine with Bransby Wilson on it are a very good indication of who was operating in the car park.

That solicitor at the mediation must not have read your defence.

[HansZimmer1]

Hi Ostell,

Hope you're well!

There has been a development with this, I am due to be in court early July, however my partner has now received a Notice to driver letter today. I've attached the letter minus sensitive details:

https://ibb.co/FsXdbPq

Please can you offer any advice with this and why they have now done this?

Thank you in advance,

[ostell]

This means they have acknowledged that your partner was the driver and are pursuing you. This is to your advantage (though not your partner's!) In your witness statement you mention that your partner has received a notice for the same event thereby the claimant is admitting that the driver was know to them and therefore there was no keeper liability.

Is the parking charge number the same?