Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi all,

Very grateful for this resource after some other platforms have struggled and closed - I'm reassured with some of the names I see on here so I know us help seekers are in good hands.

I am trying to help a relative out. He had started sharing with me debt collector letters he was receiving from around Aug '23, relating to an alleged charge from ~Mar 22 for overstaying at a Euro Garage Heathrow South. At the time, and for the debt collector letters since, I had advised him to ignore them (as we were past the private charge appeal stage already) and only start taking action if he received a court claim, which has now eventually come around.

Here is a post showing the debt collector letters from Aug/Sep 23 & Mar/Apr '24. Seems to have passed on from a company called ZZPS to GGCT then to DCBL who have brought the claim on behalf of Euro Car Parks.

Here is a copy of the court claim paperwork.

I did probe what (if anything) the driver or the keeper remembers of the alleged offence, not a lot. He tells me that he vaguely remembers hearing that time limits for stopping at that garage had been lowered, but does not have copies or can remember clearly having received the original charge letters. If anything they have already been discarded.

Now that a court claim has been received how do I (on his behalf) proceed? Is it best I manage everything online?

Since the court claim paperwork has a date of 30 Jul 2024, am I correct in my understanding that I have until 16th August to acknowledge the claim and 30th August to defend the claim? Would someone be kind enough to phrase what I should be saying when acknowledging and/or defending the claim?

I had asked for the original letters to try and work out what the original charge may have been - the debt collector letters seem to have started from £160 and now the court claim is for £278!

Many thanks in advance for your guidance/help.

Upon review of the location, that garage is on land under statutory control. As such, there is no keeper liability. A simple appeal, as the keeper, at the time would have seen this cancelled.

I am the registered keeper. ECP cannot hold a registered keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land that is under statutory control. As a matter of fact and law, ECP will be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions because Heathrow Airport is not 'relevant land'.

If Heathrow Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Airport Byelaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely. However, not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because ECP is not the Airport owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for ECP's own profit (as opposed to a byelaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and ECP has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NTK can only hold the driver liable. ECP have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Unfortunately, it is now too late for that. However, if the driver has not been identified, it is an extra arrow in the quiver for the claim.

Heathrow Airport Bylaws

You mentioned that you “asked for the original letters”. Who did you ask? We don’t need to see or know about any of the useless debt collector letters. Ideally, the first NtK is what would be useful.

However, even without it, the PoC are deficient as they are saying that, in the alternative, they are suing the keeper. Unless the keeper has identified as the driver, they cannot do so. There is no legal obligation or requirement for the keeper to identify the driver and the claimant cannot infer or presume that the keeper was also the driver.

The claim is against the keeper, accusing him/her of being the driver with no evidence that the keeper was in fact the driver. In the alternate, they are attempting to sue the keeper under PoFA which is simply not possible as the location is not relevant land.

No need to try and overcomplicate it.

This is a straight forward candidate for the short defence and draft order.

Use the following and change the necessary details such as claimant, defendant, claim number and then simply type your name as the signature and date. The draft order does not require any editing. They should both be sent as a pdf attachment to an email with the claim number in the "subject" of the email and simply say in the email: "Please find attached my defence and draft order for claim No.: XXXXXXX". You send it to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and also CC in yourself. You must get an auto-response email shortly after. Make sure you receive the auto-response:

Short defence

Draft order for the short defence

Only the defendants name, the claimants name and the claim reference number need to be edited. The statement of truth can be signed electronically by simply typing your name. Nothing else needs to be added or edited.

I doubt that any judge would see a lack of response to an LoC as "unreasonable". The LoC is not even entered into evidence unless at WS stage and has no bearing on the short defence and the failure of the claimant to fully particularise the claim.

This is a very recent court order to a claimant for failing to properly particularise their claim and is under consideration for claims that are questionable as to their PoFA applicability, such as in this case:

UPON reading the Particulars of Claim

ORDER

1. The Claimant must by 4pm within 7 days of the date of this order file and serve a Particulars of Claim, supported by a statement of truth, identifying;

a) Whether the claim is brought under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

If so,

b) By reference to the definition of "relevant obligation" in paragraph 2 of Schedule 4  to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, whether it is alleged that the claim is based on relevant obligation;

i) "arising under the terms of a relevant contract" or

ii) "arising, in any circumstances where there is no relevant contract , as a result of a trespass or other tort committed by parking the vehicle on the relevant land"

c) If a contract is alleged, what was the consideration provided by the Claimant and what was the breach of contract

d) If no contract is alleged, what was the "trespass or other tort committed by parking the vehicle on the relevant land".

If the claim is not brought under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012,

e) The cause of action and how it arose.

f) If the cause of action is breach of contract, the parties to the contract, the consideration provided by the Claimant and the alleged breach of contract.

2) If the Claimant fails to comply with the above direction, the claim shall be struck out automatically and without further order.

3) If the Claimant complies with this Order the Defendant may by 4pm within 14 days of the Claimant complying send to the court and the Claimant's solicitors a Defence in substitution for the existing Defence if so advised.

4) At the expiry of the time limit at 3), the file will be referred back to any District Judge for further case management.

I can't wait to the response to that order.

The government gateway must be in the persons name. If they are ok giving you access to their password that’s between you and them. You can provide your mobile number as you will need access to the code for the two part authentication when logging in. If it’s a close family member then it shouldn’t be a problem.

If you can’t get into the MCOL, you will have to submit the AoS as a PDF in an email attachment. However, you ideally want access to MCOL, in order to track the history of the claim and that all submissions have been received and logged.

Don’t worry about the missing LoC. It is not going to affect anything. If it was not received, that is something that could be brought up if this ever actually went as far as a hearing.

The Claimant will be sent a copy of the defence and will need to respond to it. They may discontinue or they may respond and say they intend to continue. If so, you will receive a letter confirming that. Normally, if they are continuing they will also include a copy of their N180 DQ. You simply file it.

You can check the MCOL every few days or once a week to see when the CNBC updated the history. You should see when the AoS was submitted and also when your defence was submitted.

When it says they have sent you the DQ, simply download one from here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66a8b019ce1fd0da7b592f43/N180_0724.pdf

Fill it in online and send as a PDF file attached to an email to dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and also to the claimant solicitor and CC yourself in the same, single email.

After the DQ stage, if the claimant still intends to continue, the court will assign the case to your local court and eventually you will be assigned a court date with instructions on what date you must submit your Witness Statement, normally 14 days before the hearing date.

There is now a compulsory mediation phone call. It is a 5 minute affair and you simply offer £0 and it is over. It is not a trial and no legally trained person is involved. It has no bearing on any hearing.

However, the most likely outcome of all this is that the claimant will be ordered by the judge to submit further particulars of claim according to the draft order and they will either discontinue at that stage or else file to fully comply with the order and the claim will be struck out.

One step at a time.

If it says the defence has been received, that is all you need. No problem.

What happens next is that the CNBC will send a copy of your defence to the claimant and they have 28 days to respond to it. What you don’t know is when the CNBC send/sent your defence to them.

If the claimant does not respond to the defence within 28 days, the claim is stayed and if they want to get the stay lifted, they will have to pay for an application for hat and explain to a judge why they have not progressed the claim with no guarantee that the court will agree to it and the claim will then be struck out.

Just keep checking your MCOL history once a week for any updates.