Received court papers: Re: Parking Co-op, Whitby 27th July 2012... WON

[spotty dog]

Today (25/11/2014) I have received photo-copies of N1 Claim Form and Response Pack in relation to parking on the Co-op car park, Langbourne Road, Whitby on 27/07/2012

The amount claimed is £130 + £35 (court fee) + £50 (solicitors costs) = Total £215

CCMCC has confirmed the papers are genuine

I do recall using the car park because my wife wanted to pop into the co-op. I pulled into a car space and started looking for a pay and display machine. A local resident pulled up alongside my car and explained that there used to be a ticket man in the hut by the entrance point but he had left and for the time being parking was free. I questioned this as it seemed too good to be true but she was quite insistent and jokingly asked me not to spread the word about. I double-checked to see if there were any signs advising to the contrary but I did not see any.

If signage had been properly erected I would have complied with them. I am of the opinion that at the time of this incident there were no signs but I will concede an error on my part if the claimant can provide evidence to show that the signage was properly in place

Please advise as to how you would proceed.

[mystery1]

Re: Received court papers: Re: Parking Co-op, Whitby 27th July 2012...

Keeper liability only surfaced in October 2012. It's a pity you were driving. Anyhow, do you have any of their letters ? and can you scan the particulars of claim please, without name, address and reg number.

M1

[spotty dog]

Re: Received court papers: Re: Parking Co-op, Whitby 27th July 2012...

Hi mystery1,

Thanks for your reply ...

I have retained all correspondence.

Yes, I will scan the claim form and post asap

[spotty dog]

Re: Received court papers: Re: Parking Co-op, Whitby 27th July 2012...

Hi mystery1,

as requested...

[mystery1]

Re: Received court papers: Re: Parking Co-op, Whitby 27th July 2012...

Anything else ?

M1

[spotty dog]

Re: Received court papers: Re: Parking Co-op, Whitby 27th July 2012...

Just preparing page 2 (particulars of claim)...

[spotty dog]

Re: Received court papers: Re: Parking Co-op, Whitby 27th July 2012...

Particulars of claim...

[mystery1]

Re: Received court papers: Re: Parking Co-op, Whitby 27th July 2012...

Have you any letters or signs ?


http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...ear-to-be.html


Please contact the SRA as per that blog.


M1

[spotty dog]

Re: Received court papers: Re: Parking Co-op, Whitby 27th July 2012...

Hi mystery1,

Again, thank you for your continued support - this is much appreciated and very reassuring.

I have the PCN and four follow-up letters which I can let you see if necessary after reading my summary.

Please clarify what you mean by 'signs'

Summary to follow:

[spotty dog]

Re: Received court papers: Re: Parking Co-op, Whitby 27th July 2012...

Hi mystery1,

I really do thank you for taking the time to consider my predicament and I value your advice.

This ordeal has had me and my wife on an emotional roller-coaster for way too long and we both really look foward to all this coming to an end as we are both retired.

Apologies for the length of the summary that follows but hopefully this covers everything that you will need to know. It has taken some time for me to compile all the facts but, subject to your advice, maybe this can be edited to form the basis for a defence.


Summary:

When we returned from Whitby on 28/07/12, I had absolutely no idea that I had contravened anything whilst enjoying our week away. That was until, on or around 30/08/12, when I received a letter from Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL) advising me that I had failed to respond to a previous letter offering a reduced amount in respect of a parking charge and that I must now pay £90 or risk further proceedings. There was nothing within this letter to outline the circumstances of the alleged incident other than a PCN reference number and the incident date which was shown as 27/07/12.

From this incident date I was able to determine that the alleged incident must have occurred somewhere in the Whitby area. However, we had used numerous car parks whilst on holiday so the precise location was unknown.


I turned to the internet to research CEL and quickly discovered a raft of information appertaining to the Co op car park in Langbourne Road, Whitby, there being numerous complaints regarding the business practices of CEL. Martin Lewis’s Money Saving Expert web site was amongst many web sites advising that recipients of PCN ‘invoices’ should simply ignore them as they were completely unenforceable. Coincidentally, there was also a very timely BBC program aired in response to the escalation of PCN’s being issued by private car park agencies. A barrister specialising in civil litigation re-inforced the aforementioned advice. This, together with the reputation of CEL was instrumental in my deciding to ignore this letter.


I will say, that had I received the original letter CEL claim they had sent and provided that it clearly set out what I had allegedly done wrong, I would have disputed liability on the grounds that there was no signs displayed. It is imperative that you understand that at no time was I aware there was any parking restrictions in place at the time I parked on the car park. Furthermore, if I had been aware of any conditions attached to any period of free parking, I would have left the car park within the permitted period.


Since receiving the aforementioned letter from CEL, l received no further communication for almost 5 months but then a letter arrived from Debt Recovery Plus Ltd, dated 09/01/13 explaining that they were acting on behalf of CEL and demanding £140 within the next 7 days. This letter stated that the incident had taken place on 27/07/12 on the car park at Langbourne Road, Whitby. Here it is important to note that this was the first time the location of the alleged incident had been officially disclosed to me.


Now in possession of a date and location, I was able to recall parking on the said car park. When I drove onto the car park I noticed a ticket hut by the entrance gate but this was unoccupied. I parked my car and whilst looking for a ticket machine was approached by a local resident who asked if she could be of assistance. I explained that we were new to this car park and that I was trying to establish how to pay for my parking. She explained there used to be a ticket attendant in the entrance hut but he was no longer operating and that for the time being, parking was free. I found this rather hard to believe, particularly in view of the fact that I had used a number of adjacent car parks during the week and purchased respective tickets. Therefore, I looked around the car park to double-check for any parking charge signs or ticket machines but I found neither.


Following on from the letter received from Debt Recovery Plus Ltd, dated 09/01/13, I later received a further letter from CEL, entitled ‘Notice of Assignment of Debt’ informing me that CEL had assigned part of the debt (87.5%) to Debt Enforcement & Action Limited (DEAL) and that CEL would no longer be involved in this part of the debt. This letter was purely advisory and contained no further demands for payment.


I heard nothing further for almost 8 months until receiving a letter from DEAL, dated 15/09/14 headed ‘Final Reminder Before Court Action’. The debt amount shown on this letter is £170 with an offer to accept a reduced amount of £130 if paid by 22/09/14.


On 25/11/14, I received photo-copies of a 'N1 Claim Form' and 'Response Pack' relating to the alleged incident. The total amount being claimed, including court fee and solicitors costs is £215.


I was dubious about these photo-copied documents and therefore I contacted County Court Money Claims Centre in Manchester who confirmed their authenticity.




Correspondence:


30/08/12 - CEL (Parking Contravention Enforcement Notice)
09/01/13 - Debt Recovery Plus Ltd (Acting on behalf of CEL / reminder to pay)
24/01/14 - CEL (Notice of assignment of debt to DEAL)
15/09/14 - DEAL (Final reminder before court action)
25/11/14 - N1 Claim Form & Response Pack

[mystery1]

Re: Received court papers: Re: Parking Co-op, Whitby 27th July 2012...

Hi mystery1,


Please clarify what you mean by 'signs'

I guess from your summary you saw none but i mean something like http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...5&d=1416938580

The most important question is, was the driver the same as the defendant ? There was no keeper liability at the date of the parking event.

M1

[spotty dog]

Re: Received court papers: Re: Parking Co-op, Whitby 27th July 2012...

I guess from your summary you saw none but i mean something like http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...5&d=1416938580

The most important question is, was the driver the same as the defendant ? There was no keeper liability at the date of the parking event.

M1

Hi mystery1,

Thank you for sharing the image of a parking restriction signage... I'm sure I would have noticed something like that had it been displayed in a prominent place. I was the driver/owner of the car but I think I understand what you mean re. no keeper liability.

For me, the most important question is whether there were any signs displayed at the material time. It is clear from numerous posts on parking related internet forums that there was an interim period between the discontinuance of the man in the ticket hut and the implementation of the ANPR system. During this period it would appear there were no parking restrictions in place, this being consistent with what the local resident told me at the time. Some time ago now, I recall reading updates from local drivers advising fellow drivers that on a given date there were still no signs present. These physical checks and updates seemed to go on for some time until one such entry announced that the signs were now in place.

I am currently trying to locate the source of that information but in the meantime perhaps you can tell me if you know how I can 'officially' ascertain when the signage was erected or is this something that the claimant should be asked to provide in order to substantiate their claim that a driver had 'entered into a contract with them'.

[mystery1]

Re: Received court papers: Re: Parking Co-op, Whitby 27th July 2012...

Well, i honestly don't expect them to turn up at court but we'll pretend they will.

If part of your defence is there is/was no contract as the signs could not be seen then they have to persuade the court that there were signs and you should have. It is enough, in law, that you should have and it wouldn't matter if you did or didn't. In order to satisfy the court they would need the sign, or the detail from it at least, and a site map showing where the signs were positioned. This might give you the info you need when they produce it.

You could always ask them or even send a request pursuant to cpr 31.14 to try and ascertain the answer to your question but i doubt they'd reply and if you go via a cpr 31.14 request you'd have to ask the court to force compliance and that costs money which is totally out of proportion to the case.

M1

[spotty dog]

Re: Received court papers: Re: Parking Co-op, Whitby 27th July 2012...

Hi mystery1,

Thank you for another timely response which is much appreciated.

So, basically if the claimant can produce evidence that, at the material time, signs were erected and clearly visible then I have no grounds for a defence irrespective as to whether or not I actually saw them?

It is my intention to dispute the claim on the grounds that there is/was no contract as there were no signs or alternatively that signs were not clearly visible.

I am required to send 'an acknowledgement of service' together with a defence in reply to the claim

When I contacted CCMCC in order to verify the authenticity of the photo-copied N1 and Response Pack, I was advised that the claimant would have sight of my defence prior to the institution of any court proceedings.


I am of the opinion that if the question of them having to provide evidence that signs were in place and clearly visible is raised early enough they may withdraw.


My question is how to phrase this issue and whether this should be addressed directly to the claimant or as an integral part of my defence in the response pack?


I would favour the latter as this keeps everything together and prevents any delay tactics.


Looking forward to hearing from you.

[mystery1]

Re: Received court papers: Re: Parking Co-op, Whitby 27th July 2012...

So, basically if the claimant can produce evidence that, at the material time, signs were erected and clearly visible then I have no grounds for a defence irrespective as to whether or not I actually saw them?

On that point, yes. Your defence also is that they are unlawful penalties.

I am required to send 'an acknowledgement of service' together with a defence in reply to the claim

If you are filing a defence within 14 days of service then you do not need to file AoS. If you wish to have 14 extra days to file a defence you do. (you get 14 days extended to 28 days if AoS is filed)

When I contacted CCMCC in order to verify the authenticity of the photo-copied N1 and Response Pack, I was advised that the claimant would have sight of my defence prior to the institution of any court proceedings.

No 100% true. It reads as though they are saying they see you defence before a claim is made which is obviously bonkers. I suspect they mean that once you enter a defence the claimant gets a copy and hence if you see the inside of a court they'll know what your defence is which is correct.

I am of the opinion that if the question of them having to provide evidence that signs were in place and clearly visible is raised early enough they may withdraw.

They might withdraw but i doubt it'll be for that reason. They are bloody minded but don't turn up to court very often.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...d-fail-to.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...urn-up-in.html

My question is how to phrase this issue and whether this should be addressed directly to the claimant or as an integral part of my defence in the response pack?

Defence for sure. I'll help with that.

M1