Tweet
Hi, I need some advice about the County court claim form we have received for unpaid parking charge. Car was parked on a car park by the driver in march 2018 operated by NCP and car park is in operation 24 hours and has ANPR cameras. The signs do say about the ANPR cameras. The car was parked there for roughly 30 minutes. We have received various letters but all was ignored never replied until now we have received a county court claim form dated 05/09. We have acknowledged the service online but need to prepare a defence, they issued parking charge for not paying the parking fee. The particulars of the claims are as following.
‘’The claimant’s claim is for the sum of £242.24 being monies due from the defendant to the claimant in respect of parking charge notice for a parking contravention which occurred on (date) in the private car park/land at (address of car park) in relation to (car details). The defendant was allowed 28 days from PCN date to pay but failed to do so. Despite demand having been made, the defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. The claim also includes statuary interest pursuant to section 69 of CC act 1984 at a rate of (%) from the date (date of issue of NTK). The claimant claim includes £60 costs as set out in terms and conditions’’
we have also received a letter from bw legal of ''notice of county court claim issued'' which says they may enter a CCJ against us on or after 25/09 if we do not contract them or reply to the county claim.
Do we need to write anything to the bw legal or just defence to the court?
Please somebody can have a look at the defence below and let me know if that is enough?
In the County Court Business Centre, Northampton
Claim No.: XXXXX
Between
XXXXX (Claimant)
and
XXXXX (Defendant)
__________________________________________________ _________________________
Defence Argument
1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.
2. The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained.
a. The Claimant did not identify the driver
b. The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.
c. The Claimant's demanding letter failed to evidence any contravention or clear/prominent signage
3. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £150. This appears to be an added cost with no reason and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
a. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.
4. The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist
a. The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read, it is only visible on foot and not in direct line of site meaning you have to go out of your way to look for the sign
5. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
a. In Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 EGLR 154, it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach when unable to fully comply with the terms
6. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full
defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken
have not been provided.
a. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
b. The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
7 The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the
Particulars of Claim.
a. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
b. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.
c. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge
was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair
exchange of information.
d. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.
e. On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking
charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St
Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.’
f. On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were efficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.
Please help and thanks in advance.
‘’The claimant’s claim is for the sum of £242.24 being monies due from the defendant to the claimant in respect of parking charge notice for a parking contravention which occurred on (date) in the private car park/land at (address of car park) in relation to (car details). The defendant was allowed 28 days from PCN date to pay but failed to do so. Despite demand having been made, the defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. The claim also includes statuary interest pursuant to section 69 of CC act 1984 at a rate of (%) from the date (date of issue of NTK). The claimant claim includes £60 costs as set out in terms and conditions’’
we have also received a letter from bw legal of ''notice of county court claim issued'' which says they may enter a CCJ against us on or after 25/09 if we do not contract them or reply to the county claim.
Do we need to write anything to the bw legal or just defence to the court?
Please somebody can have a look at the defence below and let me know if that is enough?
In the County Court Business Centre, Northampton
Claim No.: XXXXX
Between
XXXXX (Claimant)
and
XXXXX (Defendant)
__________________________________________________ _________________________
Defence Argument
1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.
2. The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained.
a. The Claimant did not identify the driver
b. The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.
c. The Claimant's demanding letter failed to evidence any contravention or clear/prominent signage
3. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £150. This appears to be an added cost with no reason and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
a. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.
4. The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist
a. The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read, it is only visible on foot and not in direct line of site meaning you have to go out of your way to look for the sign
5. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
a. In Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 EGLR 154, it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach when unable to fully comply with the terms
6. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full
defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken
have not been provided.
a. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
b. The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
7 The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the
Particulars of Claim.
a. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
b. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.
c. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge
was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair
exchange of information.
d. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.
e. On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking
charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St
Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.’
f. On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were efficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.
Please help and thanks in advance.
Comment