Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi all.

Sorry to post again. I need to submit my defence tomorrow, ideally.

Would someone mind looking over my proposed submission (2 posts above).

I would be most grateful! Thanks

I’m about to file my defence. How does this sound?

(I asked ChatGPT to help me write it so would be good if someone could just check its correct)

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed, or any sum at all.
2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not the driver on the material date. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the driver’s identity. The Defendant cannot be held liable as keeper because the Claimant has failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”). In particular, the Notice to Keeper was not compliant with POFA paragraph 9, and therefore no keeper liability can arise.
3. The Particulars of Claim are sparse, generic and fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16 paras 7.3–7.5. They do not set out the contractual terms relied upon, the conduct said to amount to a breach, the legal basis for the sum claimed, nor the basis on which the Defendant is pursued as keeper. The claim discloses no cause of action and should be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4.
4. The Defendant’s family member was the driver. The driver attempted to pay for parking but the on-site payment machine was out of order. The driver then attempted to use the advertised mobile app, which repeatedly failed to load and process payment. The driver left the site to find an alternative method of payment, which is permitted under the BPA Code of Practice grace period provisions. No contract was formed because payment could not be made due to the Claimant’s own equipment failure.
5. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the signage in place on the material date, including its terms, prominence, lighting, and compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. The Defendant avers that the signage was inadequate to form any contract with the driver.
6. The Claimant’s added £70 “debt recovery” or “damages” sum is an abuse of process. It is not recoverable under POFA, the BPA Code of Practice, or the Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. The Government’s 2022 Impact Assessment confirms that such add-ons are “designed to extort money from motorists” and are unlawful. Numerous County Court judgments have struck out or disallowed these false add-ons.
7. Even if a contract had been formed (which is denied), the Claimant has suffered no loss. The original parking tariff was not paid due to the Claimant’s own failure to provide a working payment mechanism. Any alleged breach was caused by the Claimant’s failure, not the driver’s conduct.
8. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its landowner authority. The Defendant does not believe the Claimant has standing to issue charges or pursue litigation in its own name. A strict chain of authority is required.
9. The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim as having no real prospect of success and being an abuse of process. In the alternative, the Defendant requests that the claim be dismissed.
10. The Defendant reserves the right to amend or supplement this Defence should further information be provided by the Claimant.

I've looked through various threads and have got myself a bit confused about all of this process, as its all very new to me.

Can anyone give a guide to exactly what and how I need to submit and what the process is, timelines etc (ideally with examples - I've seen example wording in other posts but I don't know enough about this to know how similar my case is?

Assume I know nothing about any of it. Over the last couple of years I've been various lines of attack here and I want  to try to encompass them as best I can

I think the original notice was probably in time, but I didn’t see it for some time as the letter got accidentally put unopened into a box of paperwork and I only found it after the time to appeal.

I’ve had various threatening letters up till now and responded as per the advice above. As expected I just got template nonsense replies.
I was advised to wait till the actual claim arrived, which it now has nearly 2 years down the line. So I think now I need to reply to that properly and swiftly.

I can confirm I have not at any point revealed or even hinted at the drivers identity (this forum has taught me well!). I can also confirm and would testify under oath that the driver was not me.

I just want to try and make it go away as I’m tired of it now.

Thanks!

Here you go - does that mean that you can’t see the original from my first post? https://imgbox.com/gJup7tKm
https://imgbox.com/wJ4PFPBc
https://imgbox.com/5KDIDJOF

Can I just check I don’t know if people can still see the documents I listed last year as Imgur is blocked in the UK now. Let me know if I need to post anything again

It’s identical word for word to the letter from them I posted in post 19, the only difference is the date. This one is dated 31 March. It appears to be just their standard postal generic fob off response to any email. I can post a picture of it when I get home but I’m not sure it adds anything as you have it already above. Last time I did get an email response as well a couple of weeks later which was marginally more individual so we will see if they do the same this time.

An email from Moorside Legal! They have not answered the questions I asked, of course, but does this change anything?

''Our client: National Car Parks Limited

We write further to your recent email.

Our answers to your questions are as follows:

•   The additional charge which has been levied on your Parking Charge of £70 is the amount set out in both the British Parking Association and International Parking Community Codes of Practice as the amount which may be added to a Parking Charge when a Parking Charge remains unpaid and when further recovery is required. Our Client adheres to the ATA’s Code of Practice. The £70 does not represent the cost of recovery but is a reasonable amount in relation to the Parking Charge amount, in order to encourage early payment of the Parking Charge without the need for debt recovery. It is a fair amount set by our Client’s government-approved Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice. There are however also costs incurred by our client in relation to debt recovery services.

•   By entering and parking the vehicle on our client's private land, you agreed to enter into a contract with our client and to be bound by the terms and conditions of that contract. The terms and conditions were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent places within the car park. Due to your failure to comply with the terms and conditions, our client has issued the PCN therefore if we are instructed to issue a claim the reason would be for Unpaid parking charges/ breach of contract. ''

What now? Just wait for the claim form, I guess?