ES Parking Spinningfields PCN now Court Claim

MrsE71 · 22 September 2016 at 3:07PM

In May the driver of my car stopped in Spinningfields Manchester to pick up a friend from the RBS building. The driver was in the car with the engine running for no more than 5 minutes.
On 20.5.16 I received a PCN from ES Parking Enforcement for £100 for my car being parked/stopped in a prohibited area.
The driver did not see any signage at the time.
PCN letter was ignored, the driver then received Demand letter from ES Parking on the 20.6.16 for £125, this letter was ignored.
On the 2.8.16 Letter before Claim letter received from Gladstones Solicitors. Driver responded with a Part 18 letter.
On 26.8.16 Gladstones responded to the Part 18 letter but did not answer the points raised in the Part 18 Letter.
On 19.9.16 Received County Court Claim for £227.96 for parking charges
On 19.9.16 I sent an acknowledged of service advising that I intend to defend the claim in full.
Next steps are that I am going to ask for Subject Access Request from ES Parking.
I have drafted a skeleton argument to return to the court within the 28 days.
Any advice on this first defence letter would be appreciated.

Introduction
1. This is the skeleton defence of the Defendant, xxxxx
2. The claimant has failed to follow practice directions and produce a compliant letter before claim. No exchange of information has taken place prior to the claim being filed. The brief particulars of claim do not contain enough information about the claim for the defendant to understand the claim. The defendant therefore asks that the court orders the case be struck out for want of a detailed cause of action.
3. The claim is denied in its entirety except where explicitly admitted here. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to the Claimant's case.
4. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In particular, the details of "parking charges" supplied have not been provided, and the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have also never been provided.
5. The claim is for a contract to supply "parking charges". However, it is denied any services have been supplied or a contract to provide such services existed.
6. Any consideration to the motorist of a grant of parking space flows from the landowner. The claimant has provided no evidence of possessory interest in the property. The attached photo shows the site to be a public road with the normal street furniture and signs to which the relevant Road Traffic Acts apply. See Item 1
7. The elements of offer, acceptance and consideration both ways have therefore not been satisfied and so no contract can exist.
9. The Claimant’s has provide no details of signs on which they may rely for a unilateral contract which show the capacity in which the Claimant is acting. I put the Claimant to strict proof of their rights to offer "parking charges" at that site.
10. If in the alternative, the claim is for breach of contract the Claimant may rely on the Supreme Court ruling, in ParkingEye v Beavis. In such cases, it is trite law that any charge is intended to put the recipient back in the position they were had the breach not occurred. If the charge is larger, as in this case, then it is a penalty and the whole charge is unenforceable unless the claimant can provide strict proof there is a commercial justification for such a penal amount.
11. The signs at the site are believed to show an amount of £100 but the claim includes a further sum of £50, which has not been identified. The Defendant put the Claimant to strict proof of the basis of this additional amount and how it was incurred, including details of any invoices or charges in support of their claim for this additional amount.
12. The Claimant are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 400 similar sparse claims in the first nine months of 2015. I believe the term for such behaviour is robo-claims and as such is against the public interest.
13. A CPR Part 18 request for further information was made on the 8th August 2016. See Item 2
14.The claimant’s reply to the Part 18 request is show in Item 3 and illustrates their unwillingness to engage in narrowing the issues are required by the CPR Overriding Objectives (1.1). We request the court uses its powers under CPR 3.3 to either strike out the case, or to require the Claimant to replead or to consider whether a Civil Restraint Order is appropriate for such behaviour (roboclaims).
15. If the court is not minded to strike out such deficient Particulars, the Defendant therefore will address any inaccuracies or misleading information in my Witness Statement, and Skeleton Argument.
The above points will be explained fully in the Witness Statement, and Skeleton Argument, which I shall serve not later than 14 days before the date of any hearing.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH I believe the facts stated within this witness statement are true.

SIGNED: ___________________________________

DATED: ___________________________________
Item 1: Site view
Item 2: Part 18 request
Item 3: Part 18 Reply
Any help would be appreciated. I plan to send in the skeleton argument via moneyonline with a paper copy being posted.
Clare x