Court letter for pcn

[charitynjw]

What is the court claim issue date?

[Gordyn]

7th June

[charitynjw]

Ok.....your defence is due to be filed at court no later than (by my calc) Wed 10th July.
33 days from claim issue date.

[charitynjw]

Ok thanks.

So so what is my next step? Do I wait for the court date or get back in touch with the claimant/solicitor?

sorry about all the questions feel completely lost with all this.

It's a bit difficult to answer that.
Do you know about IPC/IAS?

[Gordyn]

No I’ve never heard of IPC/IAS.

[charitynjw]

https://legalbeagles.info/forums/for...icket-received

Post #4

[Gordyn]

Thanks charitynjw

I’ve just enlarged the photo of the sign and it states “caution no grace period applies on this site”

does that leave me with no defence now or can I still fight it on the grounds they claim the vehicle was there for 13 minutes even though the photos show it was in fact only 3 minutes

[charitynjw]

Thanks charitynjw

I’ve just enlarged the photo of the sign and it states “caution no grace period applies on this site”

does that leave me with no defence now or can I still fight it on the grounds they claim the vehicle was there for 13 minutes even though the photos show it was in fact only 3 minutes

Refer back to post #12 - Code of Practice - Grace Periods.
The initial 10 min GP is always applicable.
The 'exit' GP is only *not* applicable where the allowed period of parking is less than 1hr.
If they say you had no right to park there, by definition you would have been trespassing.....not usually something which they can legally chase you for. (They would need to show that they have a legal right to do so....almost invariably, parking co's do not!)
Imho, that sign is a 'forbidding' sign (A sort of modern version of 'trespassers will be prosecuted'.)
This case transcript probably gives the best 'ratio' (Judge's reasons for decision)
http://nebula.wsimg.com/b84a6ffd1e35...&alloworigin=1
Well worth reading & understanding the Judge's thoughts.

[Gordyn]

Interesting read that was. I will have a go at doing my defence statement this evening and post it up. Don’t want to leave it till last minute.

[Gordyn]

Here’s my draft defence statement. Could you have a look at it see what you think. Let me know if I need to add/remove or change anything.
Thanks


In the Northampton County Court Business Centre


Claim No: xxxxxxx


Euro Parking Services

Claimant


And


xxxxx xxxxxxx

Defendant


DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

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


3. The Defendant believes that parking in what is now painted by the Claimant as effectively a ‘parking for customers only’ location would be a Trespass issue, for which only the landholder can take action and only for nominal or actual damages, not a made-up £100 charge. The Defendant denies that the vehicle was on the car park for fourteen minutes as claimed by the Claimant.


4. The Defendant admits the vehicle did enter the car park but was only on the site for two minutes as proved in the Claimant’s own photo evidence.


5. Further, the two minutes between the Defendant’s vehicle entering the car park then leaving the car park suggests the photos may have been taken by an untrained and unauthorised ‘self-ticketer’ taking predatory photos for a ‘bounty’ payment - effectively an incentivised lurker.


5. (i). It appears that this Claimant’s photographers are lying in wait at this location for purported trespassers and instead of allowing time for the driver to have had a fair opportunity to seek out any signs and read the small print terms, and decide whether to stay or go, instead taking unsolicited photos to upload to the Claimant, who as no involvement, yet remains liable for these actions. This gives a motorist no opportunity to learn of the terms by which he/she has been bound until the registered keeper receives a letter weeks later. This is not in line with the will of Parliament, which only added paragraph 9 (postal PCNs) to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) to allow for remote ANPR systems where there were no feet on the ground for a parking firm, and did not envisage this predatory scenario.


5. (ii). The Defendant interprets this conduct to be in breach of the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice (“the IPC CoP”) including the section regarding: ‘grace periods’ , ‘no predatory ticketing’ , ‘no incentives’ and ‘rules on self ticketing’. The Claimant has (via their solicitors, who shared Directors with the IPC in a clear conflict of interests) signed statements of truth which say they adhere to the IPC CoP. It is averred that this Claimant does not. To sign a statement of truth on the claim form when it is not correct has significant implications and indeed the Supreme Court are on record holding a parking firm to strict compliance with their CoP, which was held to be effectively ‘regulatory’.


5. (iii). The IPC had recently suspended self-ticketing for at least one AOS member and called an emergency IPC members’ meeting (April 2019) due to predatory ticketing and serious breaches of the IPC CoP by untrained and incentivised self-ticketers. Whilst the self-ticketer exposed on television for the most recent unauthorised and allegedly fraudulent conduct was not an employee of this Claimant, Euro Parking Services Ltd are put to strict proof regarding whether or not an employee took these photos, when and how that person was trained and the site duly audited, and to explain why no windscreen PCN was issued, nor grace period allowed for the driver to read signs, despite the photographer evidently standing near the car during the two minutes snatched to create the incriminating appearance of a contravention.


6. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the capacity to take legal action in this matter.


7. 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.


8. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the Particulars of the Claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.


Costs on the Claim - disproportionate and disingenuous


9. CPR 44.3 (2) states: “where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will - (a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and (b)resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.


9. (i). Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant’s costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or ‘legal fees’ at all. Any debt collection letters were either sent by a third party which offers a ‘no collection, no fee’ service, or were a standard feature of a low cost business model. The Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum is, by definition, already hugely inflated for profit, not loss, and the Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead their case in damages, as none exist.


9. (ii). The Claimant cannot reasonably recover an additional three figure sum in damages or costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The POFA states that the maximum sum that may be recovered is the charge stated on a complaint Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’) - in this case £100 - and it is denied that the NTK or the signage met the high bar set in the POFA for mandatory wording and adequate notice of the charge.


9. (iii). Evern the purported ‘legal costs’ are made up out of thin air. No individual Solicitor has signed the Particulars of Claim - in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity - and this template roboclaim has clearly had no input from any supervising Solicitor, whether in house or externally. According to Ladak vDRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated clerical staff.


10. In summary, the Claimant’s particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.


Name


Signed


Date

[charitynjw]

Do you have reasonable proof of self-ticketers (lurkers), or is it just assumption/anecdotal etc?
Basically, imho it isn't a good idea to assert something unless there is sufficient evidence of that which is asserted.
& generally, the burden of proof rests with the party who is making the assertion.

[Gordyn]

To be honest it was based on assumption as why would a trained employee for a parking firm lie saying the vehicle was on the site for longer than it was. Surely he would face disciplinary action if found out.

So should I remove all parts where I mention self-ticketers (lurker)?

[charitynjw]

To be honest it was based on assumption as why would a trained employee for a parking firm lie saying the vehicle was on the site for longer than it was. Surely he would face disciplinary action if found out.

So should I remove all parts where I mention self-ticketers (lurker)?

If it were me, I would remove it.
Stick to provable facts & make them prove any assertions they make.
It's easier when the burden of proof is, as much as poss, on them.
(Ie You, Mr Claimant, state XYZ.......so prove it!)

[Gordyn]

I’ve made some changes is this one ok?
Ignore the numbers something went wrong when I posted

NEW Latest Draft Defence


In the Northampton County Court Business Centre


Claim No: xxxxxxx


Euro Parking Services

Claimant

And

xxxxx xxxxx

Defendant


DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

1. Each and every allegation in the claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this defence.

1. The Defendant believes that parking in what is now painted by the Claimant as effectively a ‘parking for customers only’ location would be a Trespass issue, for which only the landholder can take action and only for nominal or actual damages, not a made-up £100 charge.

1. The Defendant denies that the vehicle was on the car park for fourteen minutes as claimed by the Claimant in the Notice to Keeper (NTK).

1. The Defendant admits the vehicle did enter the car park but was only on the site for two minutes as proved in the Claimant’s own photo evidence.

1. Further, the two minutes between the Defendant’s vehicle entering the car park then leaving the car park suggests the photos was taken in a predatory manner.

1. (i). It appears that this Claimant’s photographers are lying in wait at this location for purported trespassers and instead of allowing time for the driver to have had a fair opportunity to seek out any signs and read the small print terms, and decide whether to stay or go, instead taking unsolicited photos to upload to the Claimant, who as no involvement, yet remains liable for these actions. This gives a motorist no opportunity to learn of the terms by which he/she has been bound until the registered keeper receives a letter weeks later. This is not in line with the will of Parliament, which only added paragraph 9 (postal PCNs) to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) to allow for remote ANPR systems where there were no feet on the ground for a parking firm, and did not envisage this predatory scenario.

1. (ii). The Defendant interprets this conduct to be in breach of the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice (“the IPC CoP”) including the section regarding: ‘grace periods’ , ‘no predatory ticketing’ , ‘no incentives’. The Claimant has (via their solicitors, who shared Directors with the IPC in a clear conflict of interests) signed statements of truth which say they adhere to the IPC CoP. It is averred that this Claimant does not. To sign a statement of truth on the claim form when it is not correct has significant implications and indeed the Supreme Court are on record holding a parking firm to strict compliance with their CoP, which was held to be effectively ‘regulatory’.

1. (iii). Euro Parking Services Ltd are put to strict proof regarding whether or not an employee took these photos, when and how that person was trained and the site duly audited, and to explain why no windscreen PCN was issued, nor grace period allowed for the driver to read signs, despite the photographer evidently standing near the car during the two minutes snatched to create the incriminating appearance of a contravention.

1. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the capacity to take legal action in this matter.

1. 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.

1. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the Particulars of the Claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

Costs on the Claim - disproportionate and disingenuous

1. CPR 44.3 (2) states: “where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will - (a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and (b)resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

1. (i). Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant’s costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or ‘legal fees’ at all. Any debt collection letters were either sent by a third party which offers a ‘no collection, no fee’ service, or were a standard feature of a low cost business model. The Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum is, by definition, already hugely inflated for profit, not loss, and the Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead their case in damages, as none exist.

1. (ii). The Claimant cannot reasonably recover an additional three figure sum in damages or costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The POFA states that the maximum sum that may be recovered is the charge stated on a complaint Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’) - in this case £100 - and it is denied that the NTK or the signage met the high bar set in the POFA for mandatory wording and adequate notice of the charge.

1. (iii). Even the purported ‘legal costs’ are made up out of thin air. No individual Solicitor has signed the Particulars of Claim - in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity - and this template roboclaim has clearly had no input from any supervising Solicitor, whether in house or externally. According to Ladak vDRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated clerical staff.

1. In summary, the Claimant’s particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.


Name

Signed

Date

[charitynjw]

If you refer back to the NtK (& also the claim form), it just states 'Carters Green + post code.
That post code covers quite a big area.
They must (mandatory) pinpoint the parking site on the NtK for purposes of Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.