Court letter for pcn

[Gordyn]

Have you got any pointers on how I would word that into my defence statement please

[charitynjw]

The Notice to Registered Keeper fails to specify the relevant land as required by the Protection of Freedoms Act, Schedule 4, Para 9(2)(a)

[Gordyn]

Hopefully this draft is ok (fingers crossed)



In the Northampton County Court Business Centre


Claim No: xxxxxx


Euro Parking Services

Claimant

And

xxxxxx xxxxxxx

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 Notice to Registered Keeper fails to specify the relevant land as required by the Protection of Freedom Act, schedule 4, Para 9(2)(a).

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]

I think I would scrub the 'no incentives' bit unless there was definite proof of it.
& if defending as registered keeper I would make that plain somewhere towards the top.

[Gordyn]

Ok thanks I will make the changes in a bit

[Gordyn]

And here’s another attempt.

In the Northampton County Court Business Centre


Claim No: xxxxxxx


Euro Parking Services

Claimant

And

xxxxx xxxxxx

Defendant


DEFENCE


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

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

It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

1. The Notice to Registered Keeper fails to specify the relevant land as required by the Protection of Freedom Act, schedule 4, Para 9(2)(a).

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’. 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]

No individual Solicitor has signed the Particulars of Claim

This bit......didn't Will Wossisface of Gladrags (digitally) sign it?

[Gordyn]

Yes I must of missed that bit. Is it best to remove the whole of that paragraph?

[charitynjw]

Yes I must of missed that bit. Is it best to remove the whole of that paragraph?

I would.

[Gordyn]

In the Northampton County Court Business Centre

Claim No: xxxxx

Euro Parking Services

Claimant

And

xxxx xxxxx

Defendant


DEFENCE

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

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

It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

1. The Notice to Registered Keeper fails to specify the relevant land as required by the Protection of Freedom Act, schedule 4, Para 9(2)(a).

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’. 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. 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]

One technique of writing a defence is to dissect the Particulars of Claim, rebutting each section where possible.
Then add further info which adds to the defence argument.
With that in mind, I would at least make mention of defective signage & the fact that grace periods (per CoP) were not taken into consideration.

It may well be that your defence statement is too big for MCOL online filing.
If so, you will need to print it & sign the statement of truth, & send it to Northampton CCBC either as an email attachment (put 'Euro Parking Services v [You]; Claim no. XXXX; Defence' in the subject box, or if via land mail, allow at least 2 working days, keep a copy & get proof of sending. (Tracked post is probably best when filing docs at court.)
https://courttribunalfinder.service....ss-centre-ccbc

[Gordyn]

Charitynjw I’m struggling with wording the part about defective signage can you give me some pointers if you don’t mind, and thanks again for all the help it’s really appreciated

[Gordyn]

Update I lost the case. Ruled against me by default.
I really could do with some advice as I don’t know what to do now. What happened is:

1. I had till the 10/7/2019 to file my defence.
2. I filed defence by email on the 8th.
3. At 9:30 on the 9th I received an email from court saying they couldn’t open the attached pdf file (my fault).
4. At 10:32 on the 9th I resent my defence with a good working pdf attached.
5. At 13:20 on the 9th I received a confirmation email from court.
6. On the 11th I logged into MCOL just to check and it said rules against by default.
7. I phoned the court straight away to find out why and the lady I spoke told me they hadn’t received my defence, I explained that they had because I had got the confirmation email but she still insisted that they hadn’t.
8. Today I received the judgment by post.

Is there anything i can I can do now as I don’t want to be paying £267 when the parking firm blatantly lied saying I was on the car park for 14 minutes when the photo evidence shows that my car was gone after just 2 minutes

[charitynjw]

Perhaps Resolver could help.
https://www.gov.uk/government/organi...ints-procedure

[Gordyn]

Quick update

I complained to the court about them ruling against me by default, they admitted it was their fault and they have reopened the claim.

Today I received my DQ.