DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 112176--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but
missed letter
By: jfollows Date: March 5, 2026, 9:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The date on the N1SDT form you posted is 24 February.
It tells you that you must respond within 5+14 days, by 15 March
therefore.
You either file a defence by this date, or an Acknowledgment of
Service, either of which you do through MCOL.
If the latter, the deadline for your defence is a further 14
days, or 29 March.
It is explained on the rear of the N1SDT form.
Since both the calculated dates are Sundays, the deadline will
actually be the following Mondays, before 4pm from memory.
#Post#: 112177--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but
missed letter
By: Smartdriver Date: March 5, 2026, 10:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=jfollows link=topic=4611.msg112176#msg112176
date=1772726150]
The date on the N1SDT form you posted is 24 February.
It tells you that you must respond within 5+14 days, by 15 March
therefore.
You either file a defence by this date, or an Acknowledgment of
Service, either of which you do through MCOL.
If the latter, the deadline for your defence is a further 14
days, or 29 March.
It is explained on the rear of the N1SDT form.
Since both the calculated dates are Sundays, the deadline will
actually be the following Mondays, before 4pm from memory.
[/quote]
Thanks - I am really not sure what needs to be in a defence, vs
a witness statement et. Ideally I want this struck out or
discontinued before getting any further so I want to get it
right
#Post#: 112178--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but
missed letter
By: InterCity125 Date: March 5, 2026, 11:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
On the balance of probabilities, it will not matter what you put
in your defence statement in terms of the way the claimant
behaves moving forward - as far as they are concerned, this is a
game of statistics - as the matter progresses, more and more
people pay out of either fear or ignorance - ultimately they
behave in a manner where they always suggest that they are going
'all the way' - they rarely do.
So take the pressure off yourself and accept that you are a
passenger in this process.
Note also that you are in the super-luxury position of knowing
that the claimant cannot win - most people do not have that
luxury so enjoy it.
TBH, the defence statement already offered is pretty sharp and
one which you should consider?
#Post#: 113951--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but
missed letter
By: Smartdriver Date: March 21, 2026, 10:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 114162--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but
missed letter
By: Smartdriver Date: March 23, 2026, 4:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all.
I wonder if someone would mind having a look at my defence as I
need to submit it soon. Any comments, additions etc would be
very welcome.
Thanks!
#Post#: 114414--------------------------------------------------
Re: NCP Birmingham City Centre. Judes Street. Broken Machine but
missed letter
By: Smartdriver Date: March 25, 2026, 3:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page