Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - b789

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 145
1
OK, so the address they used was the previous address before the V5C was updated.

2
Mediation has been mandatory for all claims since 22nd May 2024. They have simply used an old version of the form.

Mediation is not a trial and does not involve a judge or a lawyer. It is only mandatory to “attend” the phone call, nothing else. You offer £0 and it is over in minutes. It has no bearing on anything subsequent to it.

3
You have until 4pm on 11th November to submit your defence. As your wife is the registered keeper and assuming you made no previous appeal or transferred liability from the keeper to the driver, this is all being done in her name.

You cannot at this stage change the defendant if it is not you who is named on the claim form. It is too late to do so at this stage.

You can do everything your wife's behalf but it must all be in her name. This is unlikely to go all the way to a hearing as the claim is likely to be struck out due to failure to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). However, should it get that far, your wide would have to attend court as the defendant. You could act on her behalf as her lay-representative but she must attend and answer any questions if asked, even if you are representing her.

The defence is straight forward. You will attach to the defence a draft order and two transcripts of case law. All the documents are submitted as PDF attachments to an email which is sent to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and you CC in yourself. The email must contain the claim number in the subject field and in the body you put "Please find attached the defence, draft order and two transcripts in the matter of Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd v [the defendants full name] Claim No.: L1GF6N4R".

Here is the defence and you only need edit the defendants name and sign it by typing the defendants full name for the signature and dating it:

Quote
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: L1GF6N4R

BETWEEN:

Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd

Claimant

- and -

[Defendant's Full Name]


Defendant



DEFENCE


1. The Defendant denies any liability for this claim.

2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4.

3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:

(a) The Particulars of Claim fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), lacking any specific terms allegedly breached, the signage locations, or details of the breach. This prevents the Defendant from properly pleading a defence, and the claim should be struck out under CPR 3.4. The Defendant cites the persuasive cases of CEL v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44] and CPMS v Akande 2024 [K0DP5J30] (both attached), where similarly vague claims were struck out. Should the court not strike out the claim, the Defendant refers to the draft order in paragraph 4.

(b) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);

(c) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;

(d) The PoC do not set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts);

(e) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;

(f) The PoC do not state exactly how the claim for statutory interest is calculated;

(g) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;

(h) The PoC states that the Claimant is suing the defendant as the driver or the keeper. The claimant obviously knows whether the defendant is being sued as the driver or the keeper and should not be permitted to plead alternative causes of action.

4. The Defendant has attached to this defence a copy of an order made at another court which the allocating judge ought to make at this stage so that the Defendant can then know and understand the case which they face and can then respond properly to the claim.

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed:


Date:

Here links to the Draft Order and the two transcripts:

Draft Order for the defence

CEL v Chan transcript

CMPS v Akande transcript

4
Just say that you deny any liability for the alleged debt and you will defend the claim unless the claimant accepts £0 and cancels the PCN.

You do not have to go into any of the detail of the claim as it is not part of the judicial process and the mediator should not be asking for any detail. If they do, ask them what legal qualification they have.

5
The KEEPER (the person to whom the NtK is addressed) appeals to Horizon, only as the Keeper, using the wording above, if it is for the same location and reason.

6
You can check the last date that the V5C was updated by checking the bottom of the inside pages for this:



So what was the date your V5C was last updated.

Also, are you suggesting that it is possible that the claim was sent to the correct address at the time but your partner may have withheld or concealed it from you?

Can you evidence that the you were not residing at the address the claim was sent to at that time?

7
...if the NTK is not addressed to you then you cannot 'appeal' unless you have the written authority of the addressee(the registered keeper).

Not strictly true. If it is not addressed to you, you can still do all the work for the appeal but it MUST be in the name of the person who the PCN is addressed to.

8
Private parking tickets / Re: UKPC - Coventry - Private Car Park
« on: Yesterday at 12:16:29 pm »
Please repost the claim form (suitably redacted this time) as we need to see the PoC in order to suggest the correct defence.

9
For mediation, it is only mandatory that you "attend" the call. It is not a trial and there is no involvement of a judge or solicitor. You only offer £0 and it is over within minutes. It has absolutely no bearing on the subsequent hearing, should it ever get that far.

Do not let the mediator try and persuade you that you have little chance or anything. They shouldn't, but if they do, ask them what is their legal qualification for their opinion and that you will be making a complaint about them for interference.

10
So you add to the summary already provided that not only are UKPC being mendacious when they state:

Quote
These notices are placed throughout the car park.

We ensure that signage is ample, clear and visible, wholly in line with the British Parking Association Code of Practice.

There are sufficient signs advising drivers that parking without a permit may result in a parking charge being issued.

They are outright lying.

However, you cannot upload images to the response to the operator. You will need to respond with links to the image I provided you and also with links to various GSV views showing that the signs are not present.

11
I suggest you send the following letter to Civil Enforcement Ltd:

Quote
URGENT

Dear Sirs,

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED (THE ‘CLAIMANT’)  V [your full name] CLAIM REFERENCE H3GM80Q8

On 24th October 2024, I received the attached letter dated 13th October 2024 from yourselves. This came as a tremendous shock as it is the first and only communication I have received from your company or any organisation representing you in relation to this claim. 

I made immediate enquiries of the CNBC from which I was able to establish that:

1. the claim relates to an alleged parking event in March 2019;
2. the claim form was sent to an old address at which I no longer reside; and
3. if I had been given the opportunity to do so, I would have successfully defended the claim.

I did not receive any pre-claim correspondence, not even a letter of claim as required by the PAP. Nor did I receive the claim form or any particulars of claim and was thus deprived of the ability to defend the claim. Your company is well aware that people move home from time to time. You also know that I did not respond to any communications sent to me at my old address.

This situation is explicitly dealt with in the Civil Procedure Rules which provide at CPR 6.9(3):

(3) Where a claimant has reason to believe that the address of the defendant ... is an address at which the defendant no longer resides or carries on business, the claimant must take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the defendant’s current residence or place of business (‘current address’).

As your company is a member of the British Parking Association (the ‘BPA’) and is bound by the BPA’s Code of Practice which gives voice to CPR 6.9(3) in the following terms:

24.1c Before serving a Letter Before Claim and prior to the issue of proceedings, Operators must, if no responses have been received to the NtD/NtK/reminder letters, take reasonable endeavours to ensure that the contact details for the person you are writing to are correct.

If your company had taken the actions required by the Civil Procedure Rules and the Code of Practice, my current address would have been found easily, which is obviously what you did before sending your letter dated 13th October 2024. If those actions had been performed at the correct time rather than after judgment, I would not have been deprived of the ability to defend the claim.

By reason of Civil Enforcement's breach of the Civil Procedure Rules, which amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court, the claim form was never properly served and the judgment must be set aside at your expense and the claim dismissed because it is now too late for the particulars of claim to be re-served.

In view of the foregoing, I invite Civil Enforcement Ltd to join with me in an application to set aside the judgment and dismiss the claim, with Civil Enforcement Ltd paying the court fee and no order as to costs.

Please respond to the above offer as soon as possible so that, if the offer is acceptable to you, we can work together to right the wrong that Civil Enforcement has done to me.

To give you a reasonable time to take instructions and for us to agree a suite of documents for the Court, I am willing to defer making a unilateral application to set aside the judgment until 4 pm on Wednesday 13th November 2024. If a joint application has not been made by that time, I intend to instruct a solicitor to apply to the Court unilaterally for an order setting the judgment aside, striking out the particulars of claim, dismissing the claim and awarding costs against Civil Enforcement Ltd on a full indemnity basis.

Pease respond by immediate return.

Yours faithfully,

Use this link to submit the letter (plus a copy of the 13th October letter) as PDF files:

https://www.ce-service.co.uk/submit-a-complaint/

Just state in the "details" section: "Please refer to the attached urgent letter".

Let's see their response, if any, when it arrives. If they agree, do not do anything before we see their suggested draft order. It is crucial that we check it before agreeing as it would not be the first time a defendant had been bamboozled by surreptitious wording.

12
You haven't answered these crucial questions yet:

Quote
Why do you think you never received any notice of this? When you moved, did you update your V5C for the vehicle?

13
Here is the defence and draft order you should submit. Yin the defence, you only have to edit your full name and the claim number and then sign it by typing your full name for the signature and date it. There is nothing to edit in the draft order.

Both documents should be sent as PDF attachments in an email addressed to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and you also CC in yourself. The claim number must be in the email subject. In the body of the email put "please find attached the defence and Draft order in the matter of Secure-A-Space Ltd v [your full name] Claim No.: [claim number]"

After it is sent, you should receive an auto-response email from the CNBC.

Quote
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

Secure-A-Space Ltd

Claimant

- and -

[Defendant's Full Name]


Defendant



DEFENCE


1. The Defendant denies any liability for this claim.

2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4.

3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:

(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);

(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;

(c) The PoC do not clearly set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts);

(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breaches occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charges were allegedly incurred;

(e) The PoC do not state exactly how the claim for statutory interest is calculated;

(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;

(g) The PoC states that the Claimant is suing the defendant as the driver or the keeper. The claimant obviously knows whether the defendant is being sued as the driver or the keeper and should not be permitted to plead alternative causes of action.

4. The Defendant has attached to this defence a copy of an order made at another court which the allocating judge ought to make at this stage so that the Defendant can then know and understand the case which he/she/it faces and can then respond properly to the claim.

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed:


Date:

Draft Order for the defence

14
Here is a suggestion for a POPLA appeal that can be enhanced if necessary. It is based on the fact that the NtK is not fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA and therefore the Keeper cannot be liable:

Quote
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and am appealing Horizon Parking’s Parking Charge Notice on the grounds that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued fails to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), specifically Schedule 4, Paragraph 9. Due to these deficiencies, Horizon Parking has no right to hold me, the keeper, liable. This appeal will demonstrate that Horizon Parking's NtK does not meet all mandatory requirements of PoFA, and partial or substantial compliance is legally insufficient.

1. Failure to Comply with the Mandatory 28-Day Notice Period

PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f) requires that:

"...the notice must state that the creditor has the right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given..."

This wording mandates that the 28-day period begins the day after the NtK is deemed served. For an NtK sent by post, it is “given” two working days after the date of issue, and the 28-day countdown should start the following day (the third working day after the issue date).

However, Horizon Parking's NtK states:

"You are advised that if, after the period of 28 days from the second working day after the date of this Parking Charge..."

This is incorrect. Horizon Parking has improperly commenced the 28-day period from the second working day after the date of issue rather than from the day after it is deemed served. This error results in the 28-day period beginning one day earlier than PoFA prescribes.

2. Strict Compliance with PoFA is Required – Partial Compliance is Insufficient

The wording and timing of PoFA are explicit, and courts have held that strict compliance with PoFA is required to transfer liability to the keeper. Horizon Parking’s NtK fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f) exactly as prescribed. This failure means that Horizon Parking cannot hold the registered keeper liable for the alleged charge.

The fact that Horizon Parking’s NtK almost meets the requirements is irrelevant under PoFA. Any minor deviation from the exact language or requirements in PoFA renders the NtK non-compliant. Therefore, partial or substantial compliance does not satisfy PoFA; Horizon Parking must meet every single requirement precisely.

3. Incorrect Wording on Keeper Liability

PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f) requires the following wording:

"...the creditor has the right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper if, at the end of the period of 28 days... the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver."

Horizon Parking's NtK uses ambiguous wording by stating:

"...we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the Parking Charge from you."

This deviation introduces confusion and does not match the strict requirements of PoFA. Horizon Parking’s NtK does not correctly convey that liability will only transfer to the keeper if specific PoFA conditions are met. The NtK's failure to use precise language, as PoFA mandates, further invalidates any keeper liability.

4. No Obligation to Identify the Driver

The NtK wording implies that Horizon Parking may pursue the keeper because the driver has not been identified. However, PoFA imposes no obligation on the keeper to identify the driver. As the registered keeper, I have chosen not to provide driver details, and there is no legal requirement for me to do so.

Without strict compliance with PoFA, Horizon Parking has no legal grounds to hold the keeper liable, regardless of whether the driver’s identity is disclosed.

5. Request for Strict Proof of Full Compliance with PoFA

Horizon Parking claims the right to hold the keeper liable under PoFA. I request that POPLA requires Horizon Parking to provide strict proof of compliance with all aspects of PoFA, not just selected parts. Horizon Parking must demonstrate that the NtK:

• States the mandatory 28-day period correctly, beginning the day after the notice is deemed served.

• Contains the precise wording mandated by Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f), regarding the conditions for holding the keeper liable.

• Complies with every other requirement in Schedule 4 of PoFA, as partial compliance is legally insufficient.

If Horizon Parking cannot demonstrate full compliance with PoFA, POPLA must conclude that there is no keeper liability in this case and the PCN must be cancelled.

15
The IAS are unlikely to accept any appeal, just as UKPPO did not either. However, whilst I normally would not advise wasting time and effort on an IAS appeal (less than 5% success rate), in this instance, it may be worth a shot.

However, please realise that, should the appeal not be successful, this would certain be worth challenging all the way to a claim in the small claims track of the county court should UPPPO want to take it that far. There is persuasive case law that shows that their signage is unable to form a contract.

In the persuasive appeal case of Jopson v Homeguard (2016) [B9GF0A9E] in paragraphs 20-21, HHJ Harris QC distinguished “parking” from “loading/unloading,” noting:

“Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it … a vehicle engaged in loading or unloading is not ‘parked’ in the ordinary sense of the term.”

Additionally, the signage does not specify that the 20-minute limit applies to the entire time on the land, not just "loading and unloading" or "parked". Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, contract terms must be fair, transparent, and unambiguous. If the signage was intended to enforce a time limit for the total duration on the land (including time driving along the road), this should have been clearly stated.

Here is some suggested wording for the IAS appeal that you may want to consider, for what it's worth:

Quote
Appeal to IAS: Denial of Contractual Liability

I, as the registered keeper, deny any contractual liability for the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by UK Parking Patrol Office. The signage terms are contradictory and ambiguous, rendering compliance impossible. My appeal is based on the following points:

1. Contradictory and Legally Impossible Signage Terms

The signage states, “Parking is only allowed whilst loading and unloading.” This creates an impossible condition, as “loading/unloading” is not synonymous with “parking.” In Jopson v Homeguard (2016) B9GF0A9E, HHJ Harris QC distinguished “parking” from “loading/unloading,” noting:

“Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it … a vehicle engaged in loading or unloading is not ‘parked’ in the ordinary sense of the term.”

The signage demands that the vehicle be both “parked” and engaged in “loading/unloading,” which is inherently contradictory. Since the driver was engaged solely in unloading goods as part of official duties, the vehicle was not “parked” and therefore cannot have breached any terms regarding a parking duration.

2. ANPR Limitations and Inaccurate Time Representation

The PCN is based on ANPR-captured entry and exit times, which inaccurately represent the actual unloading period. These times reflect entry and exit from the road, not the duration during which the vehicle was stationary and actively unloading. The signage does not specify that the 20-minute limit applies to the entire time on the land, nor does it clarify that ANPR timings would be used in this way.

3. Breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 – Requirement for Clear and Transparent Terms

Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, contract terms must be fair, transparent, and unambiguous. If the signage was intended to enforce a time limit for the total duration on the land (including time driving along the road), this should have been clearly stated. The current wording misleads drivers into understanding that the 20-minute limit applies to time spent actively loading or unloading.

This ambiguity is fundamentally unfair, as it creates confusion and imposes an unreasonable penalty on drivers who act in accordance with the apparent purpose of the signage. Without explicit clarification, the terms are legally invalid under the CRA.

4. Denial of Contractual Liability

For these reasons, I deny any contractual liability. The vehicle was not “parked” and was present only to unload goods, as allowed by the signage. The ambiguous terms on the signage make it impossible to determine that any contract was breached.

Conclusion

Due to the contradictory and unclear terms on the signage, the flawed use of ANPR to determine unloading duration, and the CRA requirement for clear and transparent terms, I request that the IAS cancel this PCN. The driver’s actions complied with the signage's intended purpose, and no enforceable breach of contract occurred.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 145