DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 38083--------------------------------------------------
Court claim - Euro Car Parks (Hull) - N1SDT received
DIR By: Dandalf
Date: September 24, 2024, 9:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello all!
Posting on behalf of another driver and could use some help
please with the following and next steps to take:
They originally received a PCN for an event that took place on
16/02/2022 in Hull at the Kingston Shopping Centre car park.
In short. The driver of the vehicle entered a car park which has
90 minutes free parking. However, they exited the car park after
110 minutes. The PCN doesn't state how long the vehicle was
actually parked for, only entry/exit times. It's a very busy car
park and you're often driving around/sat waiting for spaces for
ages before actually parking.
The driver of the vehicle didn't realise they had overstayed the
free parking allowance limit and therefore had not purchased a
ticket to extend their stay (at the cost of 80 pence). Euro Car
Parks issued a PCN for this missing 80 pence for the sum of
£100. This was appealed on advice from Pepipoo forums. A
response was received and ignored along with other letters from
various recovery agencies on the advice of Pepipoo. The amount
'owed' increased to £170 and the owner of the vehicle has now
received an N1SDT today.
I have attached the following:
- Original PCN letter (23/02/2022)
HTML https://ibb.co/dLvCKG1
- Letter after appeal (08/03/2022)3 pages:
HTML https://ibb.co/GtDxFdR
HTML https://ibb.co/ts3cv9b<br
/>
HTML https://ibb.co/C8C2N5d
- Letter of claim from dcb legal (20/08/2024)
HTML https://ibb.co/pbhKPrv
- N1SDT (20/09/2024)
HTML https://ibb.co/rmTtQ7Q
Side note, not sure if it's of value - the driver was not
identified during the appeal process, as noted in Euro Car Parks
response, but in the N1SDT the defendant is pursued as the
driver?
Many thanks,
Dan
#Post#: 38088--------------------------------------------------
Re: Court claim - Euro Car Parks (Hull) - N1SDT received
DIR By: b789
Date: September 24, 2024, 10:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Without having looked at anything except the N1SDT claim, this
is easy to deal with but won't be resolved until early next year
when there is a 99.9% probability that they will discontinue.
With a claim issue date of 20th September, you have until
Wednesday 9th October to submit your Acknowledgement of Service
(AoS). There is nothing to be gained by delaying the AoS. Here
is a link to a PDF with instructions on how to file the AoS
using the MCOL website:
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
Once your AoS has been submitted, you then have until 4pm on
Wednesday 23rd October to file your defence. Once you let us
know that your AoS has been successfully submitted, we will get
back with an appropriate defence and draft order.
As a matter of interest, was the Letter of Claim (LoC) responded
to?
#Post#: 38094--------------------------------------------------
Re: Court claim - Euro Car Parks (Hull) - N1SDT received
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: September 24, 2024, 10:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps an obvious point, but one worth making in a case where
the poster is posting on behalf of someone else - whilst you can
help them, the Acknowledgement of Service, and any subsequent
defence etc. must be filed in the name of the person listed on
the claim form.
#Post#: 38099--------------------------------------------------
Re: Court claim - Euro Car Parks (Hull) - N1SDT received
DIR By: Dandalf
Date: September 24, 2024, 10:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi b789,
Thanks for the swift response and resources. I will submit the
AoS by the end of the week when I return from a work trip.
The letter of claim was not responded to, the only response
given was to the original PCN received.
[member=103]DWMB2[/member] thanks for the info/clarification. I
was aware, but could definitely be handy for any other readers
of this thread.
Best wishes,
Dan
#Post#: 38120--------------------------------------------------
Re: Court claim - Euro Car Parks (Hull) - N1SDT received
DIR By: b789
Date: September 24, 2024, 10:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is a list of the main defence points that will be relied
on:
--- Quote ---
> 1. Failure to include key details of the contract:
> CPR 16.4(1)(a) requires that a claim based on a contract must
state the terms of the contract. In this case, the PoC do not
include any details about the specific terms of the contract
that the defendant is alleged to have breached, such as what
terms were displayed on the signs at the car park, or how the
driver’s failure to pay was a breach of the terms.
>
> 2. Failure to sufficiently detail the terms of the contract
formed by signage (PD 16.7.5):
> CPR 16 PD 7.5 states that where a claim is based on a contract
formed by conduct (such as a parking contract formed by entering
a site and being bound by the terms on the signs), the PoC must
either include the wording of the signs or attach the full terms
relied on.
>
> The PoC here simply allege a breach of terms without providing
the exact wording of the signs that supposedly formed the
contract. The court will expect a clearer explanation of what
terms were on the signs, how they were displayed, and how they
were breached. There is no mention of what specific terms the
defendant allegedly breached beyond "Without A Valid Pay BY
Phone Transaction," which is insufficiently detailed.
>
> 3. No Clear Explanation of the Breach:
> The PoC do not adequately explain how the driver breached the
contract. While it is alleged that the vehicle was "parked
without a valid Pay BY Phone transaction," no further details
are provided. For example, the PoC do not explain whether the
driver made an attempt to pay, whether the payment system
malfunctioned, or whether any communication was made regarding
payment issues.
>
> 4. Interest Calculations are Insufficiently Explained:
> The PoC claim interest “at a rate of 8% per annum” pursuant to
Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984. However, the PoC do
not provide a breakdown of how this interest was calculated, nor
do they specify the date from which the interest accrues.
>
> 5. Failure to Specify the Amount for the PCN and Damages
Separately:
> The PoC claim £170, stating this is the "total of the PCN(s)
and damages." However, the PoC fail to break down this amount to
specify:
>
> [indent]How much of the £170 is attributed to the original
Parking Charge Notice (PCN), and
> How much is attributed to "damages". Without this breakdown,
the defendant cannot understand the individual components of the
claim. CPR 16.4 requires that claims set out how the total
claimed amount is calculated, including any additional sums
being claimed beyond the original charge.[/indent]
>
> 6. Failure to Provide the Factual or Legal Basis for Claiming
"Damages":
> The PoC do not specify the factual or legal basis on which the
claimant is seeking damages. If the claim is simply for an
unpaid parking charge, it is unclear what additional damages are
being sought and on what grounds. For example:
>
> [indent]There is no indication of what specific loss or damage
the claimant has allegedly suffered beyond the unpaid parking
charge.
>
> There is no reference to any contractual or legal provision
entitling the claimant to damages on top of the parking
charge.[/indent]
>
> A claim for damages requires a clear explanation of both the
factual circumstances (i.e., what losses the claimant suffered)
and the legal basis (i.e., whether the contract terms allow for
such damages). The lack of such an explanation makes the PoC
deficient.
>
> 7. Ambiguity Regarding Keeper Liability under PoFA:
> The PoC attempt to hold the defendant liable as the keeper
under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.
However, based on the provided NtK, the following issues may
affect keeper liability:
>
> [indent]Failure to Identify the Creditor: The NtK must
identify the creditor entitled to recover the charge. The notice
does not explicitly name Euro Car Parks as the creditor;
however, it may be implied from the context. Explicit
identification is preferred, and failure to clearly identify the
creditor may be seen as a breach. This failure could prevent the
claimant from holding the keeper liable.
>
> No Period of Parking Specified: Under Paragraph 9(2)(a), the
NtK must specify the period during which the vehicle was parked.
The NtK only includes ANPR-captured entry and exit times, which
do not necessarily represent the time the vehicle was actually
parked. This is another non-compliance that weakens the
claimant's reliance on PoFA.[/indent]
>
> As a result, the PoC should have addressed how the NtK
complies with PoFA, but it does not. The claimant has not
established keeper liability under PoFA due to these
deficiencies. Partial or even substantial compliance is not
sufficient.
>
> Conclusion:
> The PoC are vague and deficient in many areas, particularly in
terms of detailing the contract, explaining the breach, and
establishing keeper liability under PoFA. These deficiencies
form the basis of a strong defence and the defendant will be
applying for the claim to be struck out for failing to comply
with CPR 16.4. A draft order will be sent with the defence for
the court to order the claimant to provide further and better
particulars to clarify the claim before submitting a formal
defence. No claimant has managed to satisfy the order to date.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 38130--------------------------------------------------
Re: Court claim - Euro Car Parks (Hull) - N1SDT received
DIR By: Dandalf
Date: September 24, 2024, 11:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for that, very elegantly put!
When it comes to submitting the defence, can it be that brief or
do all points need further expanding on?
#Post#: 38137--------------------------------------------------
Re: Court claim - Euro Car Parks (Hull) - N1SDT received
DIR By: Dandalf
Date: September 24, 2024, 11:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Once your AoS has been submitted, you then have until 4pm on
Wednesday 23rd October to file your defence. Once you let us
know that your AoS has been successfully submitted, we will get
back with an appropriate defence and draft order.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hi b789,
Just to update, I managed to grab some free time and helped the
defendant submit their AoS successfully using your guide.
Thank you,
Dan
#Post#: 38141--------------------------------------------------
Re: Court claim - Euro Car Parks (Hull) - N1SDT received
DIR By: b789
Date: September 24, 2024, 12:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The defence is going to be short and to the point. Unlike so
long defences, which district judges do not like, there is only
on paragraph that needs adjusting. The only other requirement is
to edit the claimants name, the defendants name, the claim
number and then sign by typing the defendants name and dating
it. There is nothing to edit in the draft defence.
--- Quote ---
>
> [center]IN THE COUNTY COURT[/center]
> [right]Claim No: [Claim Number][/right]
> [center]BETWEEN:
>
> [Claimant's Full Name]
> 
Claimant
>
> - and -
>
> [Defendant's Full Name]

> Defendant
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> DEFENCE[/center]
>
> 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:
>
> [indent](a) The PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and CPR
16 PD 7.5, as they fail to provide specific details of the
conduct or the contractual terms allegedly breached. This lack
of particularity leaves the Defendant unable to recall the
event, given the significant passage of time, and prevents a
proper defence from being pleaded;
>
> (b)The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the
PoC in accordance with CPR 16 PD 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.[/indent]
>
> 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:
--- End Quote ---
Here is the Draft Order:
--- Quote ---
> Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the Particulars
of Claim and the defence
>
> AND the court being of the view that there is a lack of
precise detail in the Particulars of Claim in respect of the
factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such
that the Particulars of Claim do not comply with CPR 16.4.
>
> It is Ordered that:
>
> 1. Unless the Claimant do, within 14 days of service of this
order, file and serve at court a further Particulars of Claim
supported by a statement of truth which complies with CPR 16.4
and which sets out:
>
> [indent](i) the precise and concise factual allegations it
makes against the Defendant and
>
> (ii) the factual or legal [or both] basis of its claim and
>
> (iii) the evidence relied on that the Defendant was the
driver;
>
> (iv) the evidence relied on that all the requirements of PoFA
14(2)(a) were complied with; and
>
> (v) exactly how its claim is calculated (if there is a claim
for a fixed sum)[/indent]
>
> then the claim shall be struck out.
>
> 2. For the avoidance of doubt the further Particulars of Claim
must:
>
> [indent](a) refer to and have attached to them (clearly marked
"A") a copy of the contract (or contracts) between the claimant
and defendant relied on.
>
> (b) set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of
the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is
(or are) relied on.
>
> (c) have attached to them (clearly marked "B") a copy of each
of the PCNs which forms the basis of this claim.
>
> (d) must state by what method each of the PCNs was first
brought to the attention of the defendant. For example,
attaching it to the defendant's vehicle.
>
> (e) in respect of each alleged breach of contract, set out the
reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant
was in breach of contract.
>
> (f) in respect of each alleged breach of contract, set out (i)
the full postal address of where the breach took place and (ii)
the precise date and time of the alleged breach and (iii)
exactly how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked
before the parking charge was incurred.
>
> (g) in respect of each alleged breach of contract, must state
whether the defendant is sued as the driver of the vehicle or
the keeper or the hirer of the vehicle.
>
> (h) not plead that the defendant is sued in the alternative as
the driver of the vehicle or as the keeper of the vehicle.
>
> (i) state clearly whether the claim is brought under the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and specify whether the
defendant is pursued as the hirer or keeper of the vehicle.
>
> (j) must explain the factual or legal (or both) basis of the
claim for damages.
>
> (k) set out a precise calculation of the claim for statutory
interest up to the date of issue to include the date interest
started running.
>
> 3. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or
stay this order by an application on notice which must be filed
at this Court no more than 5 days after service of this order,
failing which no such application may be made.
--- End Quote ---
When done, they should be saved as PDF files and attached to an
email that is sent to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and
CC'd to yourself. You should receive an auto response from the
CNBC almost instantly and certainly within a few minutes.
#Post#: 39455--------------------------------------------------
Re: Court claim - Euro Car Parks (Hull) - N1SDT received
DIR By: Dandalf
Date: October 4, 2024, 3:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> The defence is going to be short and to the point. Unlike so
long defences, which district judges do not like, there is only
on paragraph that needs adjusting. The only other requirement is
to edit the claimants name, the defendants name, the claim
number and then sign by typing the defendants name and dating
it. There is nothing to edit in the draft defence.
>
> [quote]
> [center]IN THE COUNTY COURT[/center]
> [right]Claim No: [Claim Number][/right]
> [center]BETWEEN:
>
> [Claimant's Full Name]
> 
Claimant
>
> - and -
>
> [Defendant's Full Name]

> Defendant
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> DEFENCE[/center]
>
> 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:
>
> [indent](a) The PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and CPR
16 PD 7.5, as they fail to provide specific details of the
conduct or the contractual terms allegedly breached. This lack
of particularity leaves the Defendant unable to recall the
event, given the significant passage of time, and prevents a
proper defence from being pleaded;
>
> (b)The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the
PoC in accordance with CPR 16 PD 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.[/indent]
>
> 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:
--- End Quote ---
Here is the Draft Order:
--- Quote ---
> Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the Particulars
of Claim and the defence
>
> AND the court being of the view that there is a lack of
precise detail in the Particulars of Claim in respect of the
factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such
that the Particulars of Claim do not comply with CPR 16.4.
>
> It is Ordered that:
>
> 1. Unless the Claimant do, within 14 days of service of this
order, file and serve at court a further Particulars of Claim
supported by a statement of truth which complies with CPR 16.4
and which sets out:
>
> [indent](i) the precise and concise factual allegations it
makes against the Defendant and
>
> (ii) the factual or legal [or both] basis of its claim and
>
> (iii) the evidence relied on that the Defendant was the
driver;
>
> (iv) the evidence relied on that all the requirements of PoFA
14(2)(a) were complied with; and
>
> (v) exactly how its claim is calculated (if there is a claim
for a fixed sum)[/indent]
>
> then the claim shall be struck out.
>
> 2. For the avoidance of doubt the further Particulars of Claim
must:
>
> [indent](a) refer to and have attached to them (clearly marked
"A") a copy of the contract (or contracts) between the claimant
and defendant relied on.
>
> (b) set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of
the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is
(or are) relied on.
>
> (c) have attached to them (clearly marked "B") a copy of each
of the PCNs which forms the basis of this claim.
>
> (d) must state by what method each of the PCNs was first
brought to the attention of the defendant. For example,
attaching it to the defendant's vehicle.
>
> (e) in respect of each alleged breach of contract, set out the
reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant
was in breach of contract.
>
> (f) in respect of each alleged breach of contract, set out (i)
the full postal address of where the breach took place and (ii)
the precise date and time of the alleged breach and (iii)
exactly how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked
before the parking charge was incurred.
>
> (g) in respect of each alleged breach of contract, must state
whether the defendant is sued as the driver of the vehicle or
the keeper or the hirer of the vehicle.
>
> (h) not plead that the defendant is sued in the alternative as
the driver of the vehicle or as the keeper of the vehicle.
>
> (i) state clearly whether the claim is brought under the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and specify whether the
defendant is pursued as the hirer or keeper of the vehicle.
>
> (j) must explain the factual or legal (or both) basis of the
claim for damages.
>
> (k) set out a precise calculation of the claim for statutory
interest up to the date of issue to include the date interest
started running.
>
> 3. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or
stay this order by an application on notice which must be filed
at this Court no more than 5 days after service of this order,
failing which no such application may be made.
--- End Quote ---
When done, they should be saved as PDF files and attached to an
email that is sent to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and
CC'd to yourself. You should receive an auto response from the
CNBC almost instantly and certainly within a few minutes.
[/quote]
Hi b789,
Firstly, thanks so much for putting this together!
Secondly, apologies in getting back to you, I've been working
away and unable to access this forum to help the defendant.
Can I please just confirm a few things:
- What is the paragraph you refer to that needs adjusting? Along
with the defendant and claimants name, and adding claim number
and signing - or have I just read your original post wrong and
these are the only things requiring editing.
- I only submit the edited (as above) 'defence' from your last
post, and the 'draft order' from your last post and nothing
else?
- Do I need to do anything else at all, such as via the online
'portal' that was used to submit the AoS originally?
Many thanks again for all your help, and apologies for what must
look like dumb/obvious questions above.
Best wishes,
Dan
#Post#: 39462--------------------------------------------------
Re: Court claim - Euro Car Parks (Hull) - N1SDT received
DIR By: b789
Date: October 4, 2024, 7:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
No, there is no paragraph that needs editing. I already took
care of that. The defendant only needs to put the header details
in and to sign it electronically by typing their full name in
the signature and dating it.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 4
DIR Next Page