Tweet
I have attached my Claim From from DEAL and was wondering whether the same standard defence is appropriate to me as I've read on other threads. The only difference I suppose is that this is a company vehicle driven by several different people and the identity of the driver is not known at the time of the parking incident (if there was one). I have acknowledged service which gives me until 25 Dec 2014 to enter a defence (the form is stamped with DATE OF SERVICE 27 NOV 2014). Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.DEAL.pdf
Loading...
-
Tags: None -
Re: DEAL Court Claim
Are you the registered keeper personally or is it a company ?
Someone who wasn't driving but before keeper liability became a factor in 1/10/12 http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...741#post499741
M1 -
Re: DEAL Court Claim
The company is the keeper and the driver is unknown. My understanding is that the keeper is liable now (or anytime after 01/10/12).
CheersComment
-
Re: DEAL Court Claim
Incidentally I contacted the SRA as suggested by others on here to inform them of Mr Shwarts and this was their reply to me....
We have been made aware that some individuals have received County Court Claim forms signed by a Mr M Shwarts purporting to be a Solicitor.
A number of examples have been forwarded to our Fraud Intelligence Unit who have confirmed that although this County Court form is signed off by a suspected bogus solicitor, the document itself appears to be a genuine one.
We are unable to provide any legal advice or comment on this matter, however you may wish to seek further independent legal advice
Comment
-
Re: DEAL Court Claim
Well keeper liability has strict requirements which they may have screwed up if you have the paperwork to check.
M1Comment
-
Re: DEAL Court Claim
I have attached the 3 pieces of correspondence received as 1 PDF. I have not responded to any of them. CheersComment
-
Re: DEAL Court Claim
The assignment letter is one for keeping close by :okay:
None of those others help/hinder keeper liability.
M1Comment
-
Re: DEAL Court Claim
Thanks for the help so far M1.
I will have to file a defence tomorrow as I will not be able to next week at the deadline is 25/12/2014. Given that the incident occurred after 01/10/12 should I use this defence..http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...741#post499741
Thanks againComment
-
Re: DEAL Court Claim
Originally posted by IKNOWNOTHING View Post
There are a number of small errors in that that we should fix. Not anything exciting or to be worried about but we should fix them.
IN THE [TOWN] COUNTY COURT CASE No.
BETWEEN
[IVOR PROBLEM] Claimant
AND
[JUSTIN TIME] Defendant
AMENDED DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies that he is liable to the Claimant either as alleged in the Particulars of Claim or at all. Save where otherwise admitted, each and every allegation in the Particulars of Claim is denied.
2. I am the Defendant, xxxxx, a brain surgeon.
3. I am the registered keeper of vehicle, registration number xxxxx.
4. I have no knowledge of paragraph 1 in so far as Civil Enforcement Limited and the landowners are concerned and the claimant is put to strict proof that they have a valid contract with the landowners. If they do not have a proprietary interest in the land they have no basis to demand money and no right to assign a debt to another party. In any event if the assignment is legal it was not for the full amount. The claimant is attempting to recover sums that they are not entitled to should they be entitled to anything, which is denied. I believe the claimants claim for £130 is an attempt to be unjustly enriched. I also understand that the Co-operative had no knowledge of assignment as is claimed.
5. Paragraph 2 is outside my knowledge and is neither admitted nor denied.. The claimant is put to strict proof.
6. Paragraphs 3 & 4 are neither admitted or denied. The claimant is put to strict proof that Civil ebforcement limited are entitled to enter in to a contract. Any contract must have offer, acceptance and consideration both ways. There is no consideration from Civil Enforcement Ltd to motorist; The gift of parking is the landowner’s, not Civil Enforcement Ltd’s. There is no consideration from motorist to Civil Enforcement Ltd. The claimant is put to strict proof that the driver was the defendant. It is denied that the defendant was the driver at the material time. Explain how you know this.
7. Paragraph 5 is denied as the claimant was not entitled to demand money from the defendant as none was owed. In any event, even if it was, the sum demanded was not, as the full amount of the penalty was not assigned.
8. Paragraph 6 is denied. Interest is not due as there is no base debt on which interest should be charged. The claimant is put to strict proof that any amount is due and that the further £40 is not in itself a penalty.
9. 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.
10. The Solicitors regulation Authority has no knowledge of Mr M. Shwarts being the solicitor who signed the claim form. The claimant claims £50 for a solicitor. The claimant is put to strict proof of entitlement to this charge. The defendant also states that even if he is a genuine solicitor the statement of truth is defective in accordance with CPR 22 and invites the court to use it's case management powers to dismiss the claim.
11. The claimants claim is also denied for the following reasons :-
A. The sign was not an offer but a threat of a punitive sanction to dissuade drivers from parking without payment and was therefore a penalty clause. It was not an offer to pay for a period of parking. The charge was held to be a penalty in the appeal ruling of Civil Enforcement Limited v McCafferty Their claim is based on damages for alleged breach of contract. It is a fundamental principle of English Law that a party who suffers damages through breach of contract can only seek through court action to be put back in the same position as they would have been if the breach had not occurred. In order to do so, they must demonstrate their actual, or genuine, pre-estimate of loss. I submit that no loss has been suffered by the Claimant as a result of any alleged breaches of contract on my part. Any losses are due to the landholder, not the Claimant. I further submit that the loss to the landholder is zero .
B. A charge of £90 is above and beyond that which the local authority charges for a penalty charge notice. Civil Enforcement Ltd are a member of the BPA. The BPA code of practice at 19.5/6 states "If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance.
19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. If it is more than the recommended amount in 19.5 and is not justified in advance, it could lead to an investigation by The Office of Fair Trading. "
The charge, according to the signs, is to deter abuse which is a clear penalty and in breach of it's own trade code of practice.
Case Law Relied Upon:
a) With regard to point 4 & 6, there are two Court of Appeal judgments of note, ParkingEye v Somerfield [2012 EWCA Civ 1338] and HMRC v VCS [2013 EWCA Civ 186]. In the first, the court ruled that the parking company could not take legal action in their own name. In the second the court ruled they could. The nature of the relationship between landowner and car park operator, and the wording of the contract between them, is key to distinguishing these two cases. It is instructive therefore to compare the current relationship between Civil enforcement limited and landowner, and the wording of the contract, to see whether this more closely resembles ParkingEye v Somerfield or HMRC v VCS. The defendant submits that it is obvious the relationship is more like the ParkingEye v Somerfield case. In 3JD04329 ParkingEye v Martin (12/05/2014 St Albans) District Judge Cross found ParkingEye’s contract to be more like the Somerfield case than VCS v HMRC, and
dismissed the claim. No transcript is currently available.
b) I further rely upon the following cases and evidence:
OBServices v Thurlow (Worcester County Court, 2011) (Appeal hearing before Circuit Judge).3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke (Barrow-in-Furness, 19/12/2013) Deputy District Judge Buckley ruled that the amount charged was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss as any loss was to the landowner and not the Claimant. “The problem which the present Claimants have, however, in making this assessment is that on any view, any loss is not theirs but that of the land owners or store owners”
3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke (Barrow-in-Furness, 19/12/2013) Deputy District Judge Buckley ruled that the amount charged was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the claimant had no standing to bring the claim and refused leave to appeal.
3JD02555 ParkingEye v Pearce (Barrow-in-Furness, 19/12/2013) Deputy District Judge Buckley ruled that the amount charged was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and refused leave to appeal.
3JD04791 ParkingEye Ltd v Heggie (Barnsley, 13/12/2013). The judge ruled that the amount charged by ParkingEye was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss as the loss for a four minute overstay was negligible.
3JD03769 ParkingEye v Baddeley (Birmingham 11/02/2014) District Judge Bull. The judge found that the defendant's calculation of ParkingEye’s pre-estimate of loss of around £5 was persuasive. As ParkingEye could not explain how their alternate calculation of £53 was arrived at, he accepted the defendant's calculations. The transcript is not yet available.
The Office of fair Trading agreed with this, pointing out that all costs must be directly attributable to the breach, that day to day running costs could not be included and that the charge cannot be used to create a loss where none exists (Appendix A).
Appendix B contains the minutes of the British Parking Association where parking charge levels were decided, showing that there was no consideration whatsoever
given to pre-estimate of loss, and that at least one factor was to set the charges the same as council penalties. The minutes also show there is no financial basis for the 40% discount but that it is needed to ‘prevent frivolous appeals. Any charge set to deter is a penalty. A charge set to the level of a penalty is a penalty.
Conclusion
I deny that I am liable to the Claimant for the sums claimed, or any amount at all. I invite the Court to strike out the claim as being without merit, and with no realistic prospect of success.
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
Dated this 2nd day of June 20....
To the court and
to the Claimant
..........................
JUSTIN TIME
Defendant
of [Address],
at which address he/she will accept service of proceedings.
The 2 appendix items can be found http://www.parking-prankster.com/sample-defence.html although the lettering is different you should know which is which.
M1Comment
-
Re: DEAL Court Claim
This company DEAL are a bunch of wan***s. I have Judgement for Claimant dated 21.01.15. It's on cheap paper claiming to be issued by County Court Money Claims Centre Salford. How do I know if this is an enforceable order? I am instructed to pay DEAL in Liverpool, same address as on your demand. I'm instructed to pay £237.00 to these bas***d's. Why is the Coop group selling these claims to a company owned by members of the Russian Mafia? If I could work out how to attach my so call judgement I would. Any help would be very much appreciatedComment
-
Re: DEAL Court Claim
Telephone the salford court centre and check the claim reference is genuine.
Have you not had any court papers prior to receiving the Judgement?#staysafestayhome
Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.
Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First StepsComment
-
Re: DEAL Court Claim
Thank you for replying to my post. I've spoken to the court & they confirm this judgement. I naively threw away all correspondence to this claim believing it would just go away as has happen with other parking time infringements. I can barely remember the incident, to be honest. It was a Coop car park though. Is this how the Coop retail arm make money as their food prices are scandalous. I suppose I'll have to pay these gangsters in LiverpoolOriginally posted by Amethyst View PostComment
-
Re: DEAL Court Claim
http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ement-of-truth
A letter/email to see if your local court is interested in stopping claimants take the mick out of them.
M1Comment
-
Re: DEAL Court Claim
If I also use this, can/should I add something about the fact that the witness statement sent to me is just a copy of that sent to everyone else, and doesn't have the local details etc?Comment
-
Re: DEAL Court Claim
No.
If you start your own thread and post up some details it'd be better and easier for me as i won't confuse your case with anyone else's case (similar as they may be)
M1Comment
Comment