CEL ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - i did Appeal but Rejected - Greyfriars carpark MK40 1BY

[dx100uk]

but on here 

 

don't worry about what you posted in your defence, it won't form any major part of any later WS.

 

dx

 

[BreadAndButter]

1.   Two parking tickets were purchased using the only method of payment - a mobile parking app. One for initial payment, then an extension using said app.

 

2.The alleged "breach" of terms and conditions or contract have been aggravated by the App failing to take payment despite confirming the defendant was fully paid, twice. 

 

3.Following the BPA Code of Practice, a 'You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges.' This may lead to the member (Claimant)  be suspended or expelled immediately from the BPA, investigated and disciplinary process commenced . The Claimant is in breach of this code as the defendant could not fail to be in breach of T&C's whilst being mislead into believing the parking was paid in full

 

4. Section 34.6 of the BPA COP Suggests inflation of the debt should not exceed £100.  The Claimant inflated this to £140.  Further breach of membership.

 

 

5. Claimant was informed of this App failures during the defendants Appeal, with evidence of other users of the app experiencing the same issues - This appeal was denied. They have failed to make any changes to the system nor show proof of further testing at the time of appeal to act cooperatively as per BPAS terms.

 

 

 

Edited May 8, 2021 by BreadAndButter

[dx100uk]

On 22/01/2021 at 09:04, brassnecked said:

"No Contract could be formed for any action to be taken for breach of a Contract Frustrated from the start, due to inability to pass consideration as in fee to park due to inability of the App, the sole method of payment offered to process any payment. Therefore NO Actionable  Contract can be  deemed to exist."

 

 

 

add the above into our std 3 -5 line defences found here

Programmable Search Engine (google.com)

[BreadAndButter]

1.  It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant, or broke any such contract.

 

2.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner.

 

3.  It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to establish keeper liability.

 

4.  No Contract could be formed for any action to be taken for breach of a Contract Frustrated from the start, due to inability to pass consideration as in fee to park due to inability of the App, the sole method of payment offered to process any payment. Therefore NO Actionable  Contract can be  deemed to exist

 

5.  The Defendant has added additional amounts to the claim to try to circumvent limits on legal costs in an abuse of court procedure.

[brassnecked]

Just hang fire on the abuse of legal procedure line until rest of team look it over otherwise OK, as if they make payment impossible or too awkward it kills their case on frustration, of contract alone.

[dx100uk]

yes i'd drop 5 too.

 

 

[FTMDave]

After dx's suggested change, looks good to go.

[Gick]

except claimant and defendant have been switched in two places.

1.  It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant, or broke any such contract Should be Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant

 

5.  The Defendant has added additional amounts to the claim to try to circumvent limits on legal costs in an abuse of court procedure. Should be Claimant

Edited May 9, 2021 by Gick
clarity

[brassnecked]

Well spotted Gick, shows the value of posting up to chek context and content.

[FTMDave]

Yes, I wonder who it was who made such a basic mistake in (5).

 

 

That's the result of me posting on the forum at three in the morning ...

[BreadAndButter]

OK then, as a final draft!

 

1.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant , or broke any such contract.

 

2.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner.

 

3.  It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to establish keeper liability.

 

4.  No Contract could be formed for any action to be taken for breach of a Contract Frustrated from the start, due to inability to pass consideration as in fee to park due to inability of the App, the sole method of payment offered to process any payment. Therefore NO Actionable  Contract can be  deemed to exist

 

[brassnecked]

Looks OK

[FTMDave]

[honeybee13]

Thread reopened.

 

HB

[BreadAndButter]

Ive heard NOTHING.

 

 

How long can something be dragged out as its been 180 days since we last spoke on here

[dx100uk]

if you read the last letter from the court acknowledging the filing of your defence..

it also says what?

 

[BreadAndButter]

I dont haven anything like that, just the log on the moneyclaim portal:

 

A claim was issued against you on 23/04/2021

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 01/05/2021 at 08:52:39

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 04/05/2021 at 01:24:55

Your defence was submitted on 17/05/2021 at 09:27:36

Your defence was received on 17/05/2021 at 12:05:15

[Andyorch]

Claim is stayed.

 

Andy

[dx100uk]

yep go enjoy your life now...

[BreadAndButter]

Is there a way I can close it down then?

I presume they gave up?

[dx100uk]

it already is in a way.

it will cost them £255 to lift the stay . we rarely see stayed PCN claimform threads get lifted.

 

just dont move within the next couple of yrs without informing the court .

[Andyorch]

A claim does not really get started until its moved to allocation.....up until this point you can regard it as speculative