Court Claim 3D Parking v Registered Keeper

[gollum]

In the Northampton County Court Business Centre

Claim No: XXXXXXXX

3D PARKING LTD

Claimant

And

GOLLUM

Defendant

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant received the claim XXXXXXX from the Northampton County Court Business Centre on 1^st December 2021

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

3. The Claimant asserts in their Particulars Of Claim that the sum of £200.00 (plus costs & interest) is owed for 2 unpaid parking charge notices that were incurred in respect of contractual breaches that occurred on X^th XXX 2019 and X^st XXX 2019.

4. The Defendant admits to being the registered keeper of the vehicle at that time.

5. However it is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant 3D Parking Ltd for provision of parking based on where the Defendant was on the days in question as evidenced in social media posts, photographic and video footage taken on those days.

6. Further, there were no PCNs received from the Claimant for the alleged dates

7. Under schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 paragraph 9 (4) the notice was not received within the relevant period of 14 days, therefore liability cannot be transferred from the driver to the Defendant as the registered keeper.

8. Regardless, the Defendant's statement of case fails to give adequate information to enable the Defendant to properly assess their position with regards to the claim.

9. As such, on the 13^th December 2021 the Defendant sent, by recorded delivery, a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the Claimant’s statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to the Claimant's legal representative, BW Legal, requesting copies of the following;

1. Parking charge notice dated X.XX.2019
2. Parking charge notice dated X.XX.2019
3. Landowner name & address
4. Contract

10. BW Legal has not complied with this request.

11. On the 13^th December 2021 The Defendant also sent a Subject Access Request for copies of all data that the Claimant holds on the Defendant.

12. The Claimant has so far failed to comply with this request.

13. Under Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) Where the claim includes a money claim, a Defendant shall be taken to require that any allegation relating to the amount of money claimed be proved unless he expressly admits the allegation. Therefore, it is expected that the Claimant be required to prove the allegation that the money is owed as claimed.

14. The Defendant respectfully requests the court orders the Claimants to provide the necessary documentation in order for The Defendant to fully plead their case else the Claim should stand struck out.

15. In the event that the relevant documents are received from the Claimant, the Defendant will then be in a position to amend their defence, and would respectfully ask the Courts permission to resubmit their Defence and the costs be borne by the Claimant.

16. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all.

[echat11]

You need to correct the following:

'8. Regardless, the Defendant's statement of case fails to give adequate information to enable the Defendant to properly assess their position with regards to the claim.'

I'd change 'Regardless' to 'Nevertheless', you've put 'Defendant's' should read 'Claimant's'.

[gollum]

Thank you very much echat11

I'd made the changes but have just had our post for today and BWL have responded. They've provided 2 PCNs from 3D Parking, neither of which I have ever seen in my life and would certainly have questioned had I received them initially. The issue dates are 12 and 13 days after the alleged breaches. I now know where the car park is at least but I certainly did not go there at the times stated as they are both allegedly from late at night and it's a car park in the middle of a wood! The 'evidential images' are tiny, black and with just a pair of headlights. It could be any car. The images of the number plates are relatively clear but are heavily cropped and the last digit looks decidedly dodgy. Would it help to post images of the PCNs?

They've denied my request for landowner details.
They've denied my request for the contract stating that the agreement between 3D Parking and the landowner is 'commercially sensitive information'! Is that smoke and mirrors or do they really think I'm asking for the contract between 3D & landowner rather than the one they claim I breached?
They have otherwise not provided any images of signage or any other proof of contract.

I could maybe get to the car park today to look at the signage but I have a broken ankle so have to get someone to drive me.

Could you please advise how to amend my Defence? I obviously need to amend much of it and could have a go but not sure what my defence is now.

God I hate these parking companies but I'm so glad you all exist on this forum.

Thank you

[ostell]

So repeat your request for the signs that created the alleged contract.

The one that was issued 13 days after the event has failed POFA 9 (4) in that it was not delivered within 14 days, where 2 days are assumed for delivery, 9 (2) (6). Therefore there can be no keeper liability.

Perhaps post up redacted copies of the PCN, but leave dates.

For the 12 days after one check if the issue date was a Thursday or Friday and again they would have missed the 14 days.

You have already alluded to that in your defence so add it in at the same point and spell it out in full

[gollum]

PCN 1
21/03/2019 was a Thursday!

[gollum]

PCN 2
03/04/2019 was also a Thursday as it happens

[gollum]

In the Northampton County Court Business Centre

Claim No: XXXXXXXX

3D PARKING LTD

Claimant

And

GOLLUM

Defendant

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant received the claim XXXXXXX from the Northampton County Court Business Centre on 1^st December 2021

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

3. The Claimant asserts in their Particulars Of Claim that the sum of £200.00 (plus costs & interest) is owed for 2 unpaid parking charge notices that were incurred in respect of contractual breaches that occurred on X^th XXX 2019 and X^st XXX 2019.

4. The Defendant admits to being the registered keeper of the vehicle at that time.

5. However it is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant 3D Parking Ltd for provision of parking based on where the Defendant was on the days in question as evidenced in social media posts, photographic and video footage the Defendant took on those days.

6. Further, there were no PCNs received from the Claimant for the alleged dates.

7. Nevertheless, the Claimant's statement of case fails to give adequate information to enable the Defendant to properly assess their position with regards to the claim.

8. As such, on the 13^th December 2021 the Defendant sent, by recorded delivery, a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the Claimant’s statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to the Claimant's legal representative, BW Legal, requesting copies of the following;

1. Parking charge notice dated X.XX.2019
2. Parking charge notice dated X.XX.2019
3. Landowner name & address
4. Contract

9. BW Legal, only partially complied with this request by letter to the Defendant received on 29th December 2021 as they declined to supply items 3 & 4 being the requested landowner name & address and any details whatsoever regarding the contract alleged to have been breached by the Defendant. A repeat of the request for details of the contract was sent to BW legal on 29th December 2021.

10. In their letter on 29th December 2021, BW Legal did provide copies of the two Parking Charge Notices they assert to be outstanding. However, they fail to satisfy schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 paragraph 9 (4)(5)(6) in that the notice could not have been delivered within the required 14 day period;
PCN 1 was alleged to have occurred on 9th March 2019 with a notice issued on 21st March 2019, a Thursday, bringing the delivery time to 16 days where 2 working days are assumed for delivery as stipulated at PoFA P9 (6).
PCN 2 was alleged to have occurred on 21st March 2019 with a notice issued on 3rd April 2019, also a Thursday, bringing the delivery time to 18 days on the same basis.
Liability cannot therefore be transferred from the driver to the Defendant as the registered keeper.

11. On the 13^th December 2021 The Defendant also sent a Subject Access Request for copies of all data that the Claimant holds on the Defendant.

12. The Claimant has so far failed to comply with this request.

13. Under Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) Where the claim includes a money claim, a Defendant shall be taken to require that any allegation relating to the amount of money claimed be proved unless he expressly admits the allegation. Therefore, it is expected that the Claimant be required to prove the allegation that the money is owed as claimed. The Defendant respectfully asks therefore, that the Claimant be requested by the Courts to provide the necessary documentation in order for The Defendant to fully plead their case

14. In the event that the relevant documents are received from the Claimant, the Defendant will then be in a position to amend their defence, and would respectfully ask the Courts permission to resubmit their Defence and the costs be borne by the Claimant.

15. In the first instance however, the Defendant respectfully requests that the court orders the claim to be struck out on the basis that the Claimant failed to satisfy schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 paragraph 9 (4) and therefore has no basis to bring a claim on the Defendant in respect of the PCNs.

16. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all.

[gollum]

I'd be obliged if someone could check the above PCNs and Defence before I submit it on MCOL. Today is my last day for filing.

many thanks

[echat11]

I'd be obliged if someone could check the above PCNs and Defence before I submit it on MCOL. Today is my last day for filing.

many thanks

It's really one for ostell to take a look at. It reads o.k., but I don't know enough about PCN's to add to the Defence.

[gollum]

Thanks for replying echat11 , I'm very grateful. Hopefully Ostell will be along shortly

[echat11]

Thanks for replying echat11 , I'm very grateful. Hopefully Ostell will be along shortly

Hope you sent it, unfortunately people are around all the time, a case of doing your best, which you have done.

[gollum]

Hope you sent it, unfortunately people are around all the time, a case of doing your best, which you have done.

I did echat11 , thanks. I found another couple of issues with the PCN that I chucked in too and sent the following on the 29th Dec (acknowledged on the 30th) in the end

"1. The Defendant received the claim xxxxxxx from the Northampton
County Court Business Centre on 1st December 2021

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

3. The Claimant asserts in their Particulars Of Claim that the sum
of £199.48 plus costs, fees and interest is owed for 2 unpaid
parking charge notices that arose in respect of contractual
breaches they allege to have occurred on 9th March 2019 and 21st
March 2019.

4. The Defendant admits to being the registered keeper of
the vehicle at that time.

5. However it is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract
with the Claimant 3D Parking Ltd for provision of parking based
on where the Defendant was on the days in question as evidenced
in social media posts, photographic and video footage the
Defendant took on those days.

6. Further, there were no PCNs received from the Claimant for the
alleged dates.

7. Nevertheless, the Claimant's statement of case fails to give
adequate information to enable the Defendant to properly assess
their position with regards to the claim.

8. As such, on the 13th December 2021 the Defendant sent, by
recorded delivery, a request for inspection of documents mentioned
in the Claimant’s statement of case under Civil Procedure
Rule 31.14 to the Claimant's legal representative, BW Legal,
requesting copies of the following;

1. Parking charge notice dated 09.03.2019
2. Parking charge notice dated 21.03.2019
3. Landowner name & address
4. Contract

9. BW Legal only partially complied with this request by letter to
the Defendant received on 29th December 2021 as they declined to
supply items 3 & 4 being the requested landowner name & address
and any details whatsoever regarding the contract alleged to have
been breached by the Defendant. A repeat of the request
for details of the contract was sent to BW legal on 29th December
2021

10. In their letter on 29th December 2021, BW Legal did provide
copies of the two Parking Charge Notices they assert to be
outstanding. However, they fail to satisfy schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 paragraph 9 (4)(5)(6) in that the
notice could not have been delivered within the required 14 day
period;
PCN 1 was alleged to have occurred on 9th March 2019 with a
notice issued on 21st March 2019, a Thursday, bringing the
delivery time to 16 days, where 2 working days are assumed for
delivery as stipulated at PoFA P9 (6).
PCN 2 was alleged to have occurred on 21st March 2019 with a
notice issued on 3rd April 2019, also a Thursday, bringing the
delivery time to 18 days on the same basis.
Liability cannot therefore be transferred from the driver to the
Defendant as the registered keeper.

11. The two PCNs provided also fail to satisfy PoFA P9 (2)(e)(i)
on the basis they do not state 'that the creditor does not know
both the name of the driver and a current address for service for
the driver'. Rather, it suggest that the keeper is liable above
all else but if the driver is known to provide those details.

12. The two PCNs provided also fail to satisfy PoFA P9 (2)(f)
insofar as they do not 'warn the keeper that if, after the period
of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice
is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under
paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a
current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this
Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so
much of that amount as remains unpaid'

13. On the 13th December 2021 The Defendant also sent a Subject
Access Request for copies of all data that the Claimant, 3d
Parking Ltd, holds on the Defendant.

14. The Claimant has so far failed to comply with this request.

15. Under Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) Where the claim includes a
money claim, a Defendant shall be taken to require that any
allegation relating to the amount of money claimed be proved
unless he expressly admits the allegation. Therefore, it is
expected that the Claimant be required to prove the allegation
that the money is owed as claimed. The Defendant respectfully asks
therefore, that the Claimant be requested by the Courts to provide
the necessary requested documentation in order for The Defendant
to fully
plead their case.

16. In the event that the requested documentation are received
from the Claimant, the Defendant will then be in a position to
amend their defence, and would respectfully ask the Courts
permission to resubmit their Defence and the costs be borne by the
Claimant.

17. In the first instance however, the Defendant respectfully
requests that the Courts order the claim to be struck out on the
basis that the Claimant failed to satisfy schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 paragraph 9 (4) on three counts
and therefore has no basis to bring a claim on the Defendant in
respect of the PCNs.

18. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as
claimed or at all"

Since submitting that Defence I received a letter from 3D Parking in response to the SAR. It contained only the two PCNs, that's all.

Today I received 2 more letters:

One from BW Legal dated 4th Jan kindly offering a monthly payment plan and gently reminding me SEVEN times that I will receive a CCJ if I don't comply! No acknowledgement of my defence.

And one from the Court dated 30th Dec:
"I acknowledge receipt of your defence. A copy is being served on the claimant (or Claimant's solicitor). The Claimant may contact you direct to attempt to resolve any dispute. If the dispute cannot be resolved informally, the Claimant will inform the Court that he wishes to proceed. The Court will then inform you of what will happen.
Where he wishes to proceed, the Claimant must contact the Court within 28 days after receiving a copy of your defence. After that period has elapsed, the claim will be stayed. The only action the Claimant can then take will be to apply to a judge for an order lifting the stay."

I'm no stranger the Court unfortunately but I don't recall ever getting such a letter. Is it significant?

Many thanks, Gollum

[echat11]

I don't think it's significant, pretty standard, one for ostell.

[gollum]

Evening all,

OK so BWL/3D Parking are continuing with this claim. I received a Directions Questionnaire to complete by the 14th Feb.

Is there anything I should know or do before completing it?

ostell perhaps you'd be good enough to look over this for me?

Many thanks, Gollum

[ostell]

3Rd of April 2019 was a Wednesday so took to day 15 to deliver still out of requirement.

They have also failed to give 9 (2) (e) in the correct format, ie no request for the keeper to pay.
Also failed to give 9 (2) (f) warning of keeper liability. Unless it occurs elsewhere

Sorry for slow response.