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

[spotty dog]

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

Hi mystery1,

Thank you once again…


Would you be kind enough to expand on what you mean when you say:

Your defence also is that they are unlawful penalties.

I have written to North Yorkshire County Council to see if they can shed any light on whether there were any lawfully placed signs on the car park at the material time. They require five working days to respond so I think it would be best if I file AoS to allow more time for this and any other enquiries to be completed.

I think I need to clarify any possible confusion over what I was told by CCMCC.

The person with whom I spoke explained that at this stage the claimant has simply registered a complaint but there is still room for negotiation and that the claimant may decide to withdraw their complaint depending on what I say when completing the defence section within the response pack. I was told that the complainant (not the court) will be able to access what I have said and take this into consideration whilst deciding whether or not they wish to pursue the claim any further. It is for this reason that I thought it might be a good idea to get in early and raise the issue that evidence will be required to prove that signage was in place and visible to drivers using the car park.

Thank you for offering to help with formulating a defence statement - I will take you up on your kind offer.

Thank you for the links to the Parking Prankster blogs - some very interesting stories!

A few more questions….

When you say "they don’t turn up to court very often” … what is the position if they don't?

Presumably, a defence has to be made in person?

What happens if the defendant attends court but the claimant does not?

In the event of the court not being in position to proceed either due to the absence of the claimant or through lack of supporting evidence which the claimant should have provided, can the defendant make an application for costs?

[mystery1]

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

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...es/part27#27.9

Non-attendance of parties at a final hearing
27.9
(1) If a party who does not attend a final hearing–
(a) has given written notice to the court and the other party at least 7 days before the hearing date that he will not attend;
(b) has served on the other party at least 7 days before the hearing date any other documents which he has filed with the court; and
(c) has, in his written notice, requested the court to decide the claim in his absence and has confirmed his compliance with paragraphs (a) and (b) above,
the court will take into account that party’s statement of case and any other documents he has filed and served when it decides the claim.
(2) If a claimant does not –
(a) attend the hearing; and
(b) give the notice referred to in paragraph (1),
the court may strike out(GL) the claim.
(3) If –
(a) a defendant does not –
(i) attend the hearing; or
(ii) give the notice referred to in paragraph (1); and
(b) the claimant either –
(i) does attend the hearing; or
(ii) gives the notice referred to in paragraph (1),
the court may decide the claim on the basis of the evidence of the claimant alone.
(4) If neither party attends or gives the notice referred to in paragraph (1), the court may strike out the claim and any defence and counterclaim.
Back to top
Disposal without a hearing
27.10 The court may, if all parties agree, deal with the claim without a hearing.



Penalties can only be charged by those that the law allow and the law only allows government and their agencies to do so. (police councils etc)

These private parking companies can't fine you. However the can contract with you in the right circumstances or there could be damages due under trespass.

If you wish to learn about penalties in civil law in depth read para 66 onwards http://13oldsquare.com/files/documen...proved_jdg.pdf

It won't matter a toss whether the signs were allowed to be there by the council.

I think I should clarify any possible confusion over what I was told by CCMCC. The person with whom I spoke explained that at this stage the claimant has simply registered a complaint but there is still room for negotiation and that the claimant may decide to withdraw their complaint depending on what I say when completing the defence section within the response pack. I was told that the complainant (not the court) will be able to access what I have said and take this into consideration whilst deciding whether or not they wish to pursue the claim any further. It is for this reason that I thought it might be a good idea to get in early and raise the issue that evidence will be required to prove that signage was in place and visible to drivers using the car park.

Mostly correct. The court can also access it but that means nothing really. The claimant knows they will have to prove their case but yes we will introduce it in the defence.

M1

[spotty dog]

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

Hi mystery1,

I will leave things for a few days before filing AoS.

In the meantime, I have emailed the co op legal dept requesting information as to whether there was any parking restrictions in place on the date in questions and if so, what date any signs were erected, their description, image of same and map showing their location.

Replies to this enquiry and also the email sent to the county council will no doubt take a little time but I will be in touch as soon as there is any further development.

[mystery1]

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

No need to hold off with acknowledgement of service. Do it now and you won't forget or get sidetracked. It doesn't change anything except give you longer to file a defence.

M1

[spotty dog]

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

No need to hold off with acknowledgement of service. Do it now and you won't forget or get sidetracked. It doesn't change anything except give you longer to file a defence.

M1

Good point ... will do it today - thanks

[Bradford1956]

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

I have received from Northampton CC a summons for not paying a charge for parking in a co-op carpark. All the advise online to just ignore this sort of thing has back fired unfortunately. Anyway my query is that the "solicitor" who signed the Statement of Truth on behalf of the claimant doesn't actually seem to exist. I have spoken to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority and the Law Society and searched on the SRA website ( search included in-house solicitors ) and the person who has signed the form, charged £50 added to the claim and stated he is a solicitor doesn't seem to actually be registered as a solicitor. Am I correct in thinking that all solicitors have to have a Cert to Practise. This chap has also conveniently forgotten to list his firm's name or trading name. Bearing in mind the very dubious background to the claimant is it possible this is a try-on. Would anyone know how I stand as far as this summons is concerned, surely the form I have been sent is defective and void. And does a limited company ie the claimant have to put their registered address on the form ie as registered at Companies Hs or can they use any. Long winded I Know but would appreciate any help in regards this untraceable "solicitor"

IT MAY BE OF INTEREST TO OTHERS POSTERS RE MY POST ABOVE. THE SOLICITOR WHO HAS SIGNED THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH ON MY SUMMONS, STATING HE IS A SOLICITOR CANNOT BE TRACED ON ANY DATABASE OF SOLICITORS IN PARTICULAR THE SOLICITORS REGULATORY AUTHORITY. FROM A PHONE CALL TO THEM THEY CONFIRM THEIR IS NO SOLICITOR BY THE NAME STATED ON MY FORMS. THIS COULD MAKE THE SUMMONS NIL AND VOID.

[ostell]

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

I note on the POC that they are claiming the £215 under an agreed contract but then they go on to say (last line) alternatively damages for breach of contract alternatively damages for trespass. Surely they have to say what they are claiming and not give a wish list.

[Bradford1956]

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

Yes agree fully. Surely if enough people contact the court by email stating that the summons form is defective as the Statement of Truth is signed by a solicitor who does not exist, they the court would have to take the initiative and contact the claimant. I have reported it also to the SRA as probably many others have as well. It clearly states also that the "solicitor" has to enter the name of his firm. The address on the summons form does not show their Registered Address , but actually another address. I have emailed Companies House re the legal requirement. So to summarise the CC have accepted an application to issue a summons from a claimant who has authorised a solicitor to act on their behalf. The "solicitor" listed appears not to be a solicitor. It is a criminal offence to state you are a solicitor when that is not the case !! And information from the form is missing ie name of solicitors firm. My reply from CC is that maybe this "solicitor" is in-house. Still have to be registered and the search on the SRA website gives the option to "include in-house solicitors". Has anyone searched on the owner of the claimant firm ..quite interesting as regards residency !! So lots of emails off to the CC stating the summons form is actually "defective"

[mystery1]

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

There is a big difference between a defective statement of truth and and a fraud. Until the SRA fraud department reach a conclusion it's hard to say what the outcome will be. Best continue as if it's a genuine claim at the same time as complaining to authorities.

[MENTION=39331]ostell[/MENTION] That is correct. The defences i've composed so far all have "The claimants claim fails to meet CPR 16.2 (1) (a). It does not include a concise statement of the nature of the claim. It's either a contractual charge, damages for breach of contract or damages for trespass."

[spotty dog]

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

Hi mystery1,

AoS completed and will be sent on Monday by recorded delivery. I have not received any original documents, the N1 and Response pack are photo-copies.

1. is it normal to receive photo-copies?

2. These photo-copies appear to have been sent by CCMCC, (Manchester) - Please confirm where the AoS should be sent to.

I have emailed a photo of N1 (signed by Mr M Shwarts) together with a covering letter to SRA (sent 29/11/14)

[mystery1]

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

https://www.moneyclaimsuk.co.uk/ccmcc.aspx

Give the court a call. 1. you'll know it's genuine. 2. they'll give you an email address if they can to save on cost

M1

[spotty dog]

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

Hi mystery1,

CCMCC told me that the claim is genuine.

I will file AoS first thing in the morning.

Hopefully, this week will see a response from either the council or the co-op but I will have to start compiling my defence soon - what do you reckon?

[mystery1]

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

Indeed.

Just trying to get the signs to improve an already strong position.

M1

[spotty dog]

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



An update for you….

1. Contacted CCMCC today - they hove confirmed the claim is genuine - stated photo-copied N1 and Response Pack is what the claimant has sent to them (CCMCC) and that after appending their Claim Number sticker, they (CCMCC) have forwarded same to me - hence no original blue forms.
2. AoS emailed today (ccmcce-filing@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk) and original posted. (retained ‘proof of postage’ certificate.)

Re: My enquiry to Co-Op 27/11/14

Today, I received a sympathetic email / reply from the Nigel Radcliffe - Co-op careline confirming CEL operated on the Co-op car park at Whitby from May 2012 until late 2013. I am quite happy to upload the complete letter if you wish but here is an extract of what I believe are the salient points:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The following restrictions were in place during the car park management system operated by Civil Enforcement Ltd:

There were 2 payment machines with alphanumeric keypads on which drivers had to enter the exact registration details which are automatically linked to the ANPR data collected.

There was a period of 45 minutes free parking
Tickets for parking should be purchased within 10 minutes of arrival at the car park
The tariff for a stay of up to 2hrs was £2 (The store provided a rebate of over £20)
The tariff of a stay of up to 4hrs was £4 (the store provided a rebate of over £40)

Signage was displayed at the store to show the parking restrictions but you would need to contact Civil Enforcement Limited for the exact siting of car parking signage at the store.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So, some useful information but no confirmation as to where the two machines or signage were located and no mention of when either was actually installed / erected. Instead, Mr Radcliffe suggests that I contact CEL to get some answers to these questions. (your advice please)

I believe I would have a stronger defence if I could prove that there were no signs displayed at the time or that they were not clearly visible. This is something which I am trying to get to the bottom of but not having much success so far.

That said, and please correct me if I’m wrong, but it does seem as though that evidence (if it was available) would only serve as one element of the complete defence so all is not lost if I am unable to find out one way or the other.

Can we begin compiling a defence or is there anything else that you want me to look into?

[mystery1]

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

https://www.facebook.com/CelAtCoOpCa...type=1&theater

Will get to it soon.

M1