Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[biggriffin]

Right so. The op has received form N1, which says in the past he had already been issued with a parking charge,and ignored it,
  So the parking company have started proceedings,
Also mansure guffer, standing there going nan nana I,know what to do is very helpful for the op.
I would take lc110 advice,as it has always been correct and helpful for others on previous occasions.

[chrisgixer]

Have received letters from similar parking vultures in the past, and binned them. Nothing further came of it.

However. No experience of this N1 malarkey  though and not sure if the law has changed since.

[bigegg]

LC110 is correct.
If this is an OFFICIAL N1, then do not ignore it.

Which court issued it?

The first thing to do is acknowledge it, stating you will be making a full defence. You can do this online if the claim has been issued from the Bulk Processing centre.
This will give you an extra 14 days to provide your defence.

Your defence can then be drafted - as a rough guide, depending upon the exact "particulars of claim", the defence will be something like

1. The defendant denies using the car park at the time and date claimed.
2. The defendant neither admits nor denies entering any contract with the claimant, and puts the claimant to strict proof such a contract was entered.
3. Notwithstanding the above, the defendant submits that the claimed "charge" is a penalty charge for breach of contract, and is thus unlawful.
4. The defendant puts the claimant to strict proof that the "charge" is a reasonable estimate of the claimants costs due to the alleged breach of said contract.

You will get good advice on www.consumeractiongroup.com as well as peipoo. Not sure about MSE, I find them a bit "fluffy".

But to repeat:


DO NOT IGNORE IF THIS IS A REAL COURT LETTER.

If it's not real, but is made out to be, tear them a new cakehole.

[amba]

Just got back home for a bit of lunch and have now filled in the form and got SWTSMBO to duly sign.

Have  stated the claim is disputed as follows:

The vehicle was not parked in the place as stated on the claimants form at the times or date given.....(Fact how could it be as stated 010/01/1900,but this wasnt put on the form.

Also stated that no previous correspondance has every been received before in this matter and believed it was just a "scam" to claim money with threats and menaces as was annoyed that they could just get vehicle details and make false claims..( Fact how could they ever prove the contary given the dates they state for the alleged offence,if indeed any has been commited)

Stated that the entire claim was disputed.

Form will be going off recorded delivery later today so hopefully this will just get thrown out when somebody sensible at the court level reads through it.

Do we receive anything back from the Court  to advise if and when this may be taken to court or that it has been laughed at and thrown in the bin !!

[bigegg]

oops. 
That will now be entered as your defence...
If it goes to court (unlikely, but possible!), you *may* need to apply to court to submit an altered defence.
Don't worry about it for now, tho.

Other things to mention: "no compliance with pre-action protocols" (basically, court should be a last resort, not a first, so a claimant would be expected to have made previous contact with the defendant).

You will receive an acknowledgement from the court that your defence has been submitted, and that the claimant then has a limited time (14 days I think) to pay a further fee to go ahead with the claim, or drop the case.

You don't have to do anything for the moment, but have a read round on the suggested forums

[LC0112G]

Have received letters from similar parking vultures in the past, and binned them. Nothing further came of it.

However. No experience of this N1 malarkey  though and not sure if the law has changed since.

Prior to 2012, the advice was to ignore. The parking company could then either move on to some other (easier to intimidate) sucker, or try to take you to court. The problem they had was that they could only sue the Driver, and not the Registered Keeper. They get the RK details from DVLA. But there was no way to force the RK do disclose who the Driver at the time was, and legally only the Driver could be held responsible. If they did discover who the Driver was, they could try and sue through the small claims route - N1 and court papers. However if the RK stayed stumm, and ignored all paperwork, then the parking company were never going to win.

In 2012 the Protection of Freedom Act was passed. This gives the parking companies the ability to persue the Registered Keeper of the vehicle for their money. Hence, if the RK ignores all the paperwork, the parking companies now sue the RK, issue N1 + court papers. If you don't defend, then you lose by default, and have to pay the increased charges.

So yes the law has changed, and ignoring a private parking ticket is now a very risky thing to do. It may work with some companies (those that don't "do court"), but many of them now ARE taking legal action against the RK. Most of these parking tickets can be defeated well before it reaches the court stage if you follow the MSE/Pepipoo appeals routes. However, if it gets to court and you aren't well prepared you can get shafted.

Do ya feel lucky, punk? Do Ya?

[amba]

Cheers Bigegg.

Paperwork looks slightly iffy tbh and looks like it has been scanned off something.It has a rubber stamp stating date served and has a photocopy signature by somebody called..Mr.M.Schwartz.(Solicitor) but has no address so imagine this is just taken off a word processor.

The claim form is entered at the Northampton County Court and below that is a sticker with CCMCC 02/03/2015 and then a pressumably ref number on the sticker.Below that is a very faint stamp saying SEAL with a crown and below that  the wording County Court ,which looks like something from a John Bull kids printing set.Below that it is stating that you should indicate your preferred court for the hearing which has been filled in as Barnet Civil and Family Court Centre.

The set of court documents for her response look much more legal and has stated that when completed they should be returned to ..County Court Money Claims Centre,PO Box 527,Salford M5 0BY.

[amba]

As it hasnt yet been sent off should I attach the extra statements and put this  on a  seperate sheet.

1. The defendant denies using the car park at the time and date claimed.
2. The defendant neither admits nor denies entering any contract with the claimant, and puts the claimant to strict proof such a contract was entered.
3. Notwithstanding the above, the defendant submits that the claimed "charge" is a penalty charge for breach of contract, and is thus unlawful.
4. The defendant puts the claimant to strict proof that the "charge" is a reasonable estimate of the claimants costs due to the alleged breach of said contract.


Didnt want it to sound like she was a solicitor 

[JamesV6CDX]

If it were me I'd take into account:

1) contact the court service and ascertain if this is a genuine court issued document

2) if it is, do not under any circs ignore it.

3) in my experiences, judges take very unkindly to defendants trying to use 'technicalities' such as a date being printed wrongly, if they have actually made a contravention or committed an offence

4) v important - remember that, whilst a prosecution in a criminal court has to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, a small claims court only have to be convinced on "the balance of probabilities". This is a much lower burden of proof meaning more chance of the court deciding against you, and why I typed number 3.

5) you state you've not had correspondence from them before. But did you, or your wife commit the contravention?

If yes you could write to them, and say "ok we think we probably did overstay. But we haven't had any other correspondence from you and £200 is therefore not proportional. On this basis, please accept our offer of £50(or whatever) which is the contravention charge listed on your notices.

If they then still take it to court, despite you trying to resolve it reasonably out of court, the judge would likely frown upon them, and give you credit for this

For legal purposes, all information I've posted is not classified or restricted and is freely available in the public domain. the above is not advice to you, simply considerations I would make in your position. The above is my personal view and in no way connected to any occupation or position I hold, or have ever held. Posts on a forum are no substitute for professional legal advice.

[vauxsull]

I also had one last July from Cheshire oaks cinema car park... I ignored the first letter and waiting almost two months for the second.... The car used was my wifes so the mail came addressed to her... Reading various blogs on websites dealing with cowboy parking company's advised us to send a letter back to them stating that she wasn't driving the car that evening but I was.... The intention is to stall them for as long as you can... I expected to receive a letter in my name wanting the £100 charge but I never received one... If I had of had a letter would of sent one back asking for more details...and so it would have gone on and on and on... They want to scare you in to paying ( hence the large bold red ink at the top of the page)... Stand your ground..

[bigegg]

If it was issued via MCOL/northnants there should be an online password/user name.

Use that to log on to moneyclaimonline and just acknowledge service, stating you intend to defend in full

That will give you an extra 14 days to sort out a defence - acknowledge NOW. Defence after weekend.

The claim form does sound a bit dodgey, but not neccesarily.

You could always phone northants to ask if the claim number is genuine - if it's not, then the solicitor is very likely to get struck off!

Try not to worry about it too much, tho.

I'm not a lawyer, btw, but I've been through court 5 times in last couple of years, and not lost yet!

[vauxsull]

Yes as James said... If its a council issue parking ticket then pay it... My stepson ignored a £30 ticket from Manchester City council and I ended up with a letter from the high court bailiffs telling me they where going to seize goods from my house the next day unless £300 was paid that day... All because his car was registered at my house...

[JamesV6CDX]

If you have been served genuine court papers, I'd  reply now only to the court, and not correspond with the parking company

[bigegg]

If it were me I'd take into account:

1) contact the court service and ascertain if this is a genuine court issued document

2) if it is, do not under any circs ignore it.

3) in my experiences, judges take very unkindly to defendants trying to use 'technicalities' such as a date being printed wrongly, if they have actually made a contravention or committed an offence

Depends how it's phrased - "I can neither confirm nor deny as I don't actually know the date of the alleged contravention". Im my experience, judges also don't like particulars of claim being "dashed off" without being checked for accuracy

4) v important - remember that, whilst a prosecution in a criminal court has to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, a small claims court only have to be convinced on "the balance of probabilities". This is a much lower burden of proof meaning more chance of the court deciding against you, and why I typed number 3.


5) you state you've not had correspondence from them before. But did you, or your wife commit the contravention?

It's not what happened, it's what can be PROVED happened.
If the date on the claim is wrong, then how can anyone be sure that the time is correct?

If yes you could write to them, and say "ok we think we probably did overstay. But we haven't had any other correspondence from you and £200 is therefore not proportional. On this basis, please accept our offer of £50(or whatever) which is the contravention charge listed on your notices.

If they then still take it to court, despite you trying to resolve it reasonably out of court, the judge would likely frown upon them, and give you credit for this

For legal purposes, all information I've posted is not classified or restricted and is freely available in the public domain. the above is not advice to you, simply considerations I would make in your position. The above is my personal view and in no way connected to any occupation or position I hold, or have ever held. Posts on a forum are no substitute for professional legal advice.

This bit^^^ .
What James said. I am not a Lawyer. My liability to you for any action taking based on what i write is limited to how much you paid me to write it 

[LC0112G]

Cheers Bigegg.

Paperwork looks slightly iffy tbh and looks like it has been scanned off something.It has a rubber stamp stating date served and has a photocopy signature by somebody called..Mr.M.Schwartz.(Solicitor) but has no address so imagine this is just taken off a word processor.

The claim form is entered at the Northampton County Court and below that is a sticker with CCMCC 02/03/2015 and then a pressumably ref number on the sticker.Below that is a very faint stamp saying SEAL with a crown and below that  the wording County Court ,which looks like something from a John Bull kids printing set.Below that it is stating that you should indicate your preferred court for the hearing which has been filled in as Barnet Civil and Family Court Centre.

The set of court documents for her response look much more legal and has stated that when completed they should be returned to ..County Court Money Claims Centre,PO Box 527,Salford M5 0BY.

This all sounds genuine to me.

I agree with what bigegg and JamesV6CDX have posted. If you get this wrong you are going to get shafted.   

Take your time - use the weekend to research the process in detail. Join either MSE or Pepipoo, and start your own thread there. They are the experts at this, and will tell you how to proceed.

Oh - and since we're all into covering our own ar5es incase someone sues for incorrect advice - I'm not a lawyer either.