Help! Court Claim Form Received

Defence


1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, or any amount at all.

Preliminary
2. The Claimant 'UKCPM' has failed to comply with the requirements of Civil Procedure Rule 16.4. Its sparse Particulars do not disclose any cause of action which could give rise to a claim, and their single-page Letter Before Claim was no more than an aggressive demand, designed to intimidate and mislead the defendant, rather than narrow the issues or provide any specific detail.

2.1. Despite the Defendant requesting this information in pre-action communication, this Claimant has failed to set out the basis of the claim - trespass or contractual breach? It has not specified how the sum sought represents any fee, charge, costs or damages incurred - nor evidenced that any contract existed or was breached - hence the Defendant is having to attempt to cover all possibilities, with no fair opportunity to make an informed response.

2.1.1. The Claimant's solicitors merely sent a photograph of the car and a very small, illegible UKCPM sign and no other details, copies of letters, facts or evidence.

2.2. The Particulars of Claim (POC) fail to meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5. The POC are incoherent, make no sense, and do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the Defendant.

2.2.1. The POC contain no facts and are not clear and concise as required by CPR 16.4 (a). The Claimants are serial issuers of generic claims like this 'roboclaim’ given away in this case by typical, generic lack of detail. The Claimant has not elaborated on the alleged 'breach of terms'. The Claimant claims £160 for ''Parking Charges/Damages'' despite the fact parking charges cannot be claimed as damages except by a landowner as a remedy for trespass, and cites ''indemnity costs if applicable'' whatever that is supposed to mean, bearing in mind the Claimant previously alleged this was about a single £100 charge.

2.2.2. Practice Direction 3A refering Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this:
‘1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
- those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’,
- those which are incoherent and make no sense,
- those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant.'

2.3. The Defendant undertook to appeal the unwarranted parking charge in all good faith, in the hope of resolving the dispute, including what was described by the Claimant as an 'independent' review by the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). There is no scrutiny board and IAS decisions in the public domain blatantly disregard recognised standards of law or justice and shift the burden to the consumer to prove matters outside of their knowledge and evidence, causing a significant imbalance in the rights and interests of consumers, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

2.4. The Defendant has discovered that the Claimant's Trade Body, the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), is an organisation operated by the same Directors as are/were recorded at Gladstones Solicitors, at least until very recently. They - John Davies and Will Hurley - are also responsible for the IAS.

2.5. The Defendant now submits that the IAS 'decision' should be disregarded; it is ostensibly described as an appeal service, yet the Assessors' names remain secret. No figures or reports are published by the IAS but the publication 'Parking Review' reported that only 20% of appeals were upheld (compared to POPLA where 50% have consistently been upheld since its inception in 2012). It is unsurprising then, given the relationship between the parties, that the IAS rejected the Defendant's appeal.

2.6. Now the Defendant notes that Gladstones are employed in bringing this claim, demonstrating a clear conflict of interests.

Background
3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the driver of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is on loan car agreement with Ipswich Volkswagen, the vehicle is insured and the Defendant is permitted to use it on 19/10/2016.

4. It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's loan vehicle was parked at [location]

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
5. It is denied that the Defendant were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the leaseholder of [address], whose permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.

6. It is not admitted that the Claimant has contractual or other lawful authority to make contracts with residents at this location, and/or to bring proceedings against the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof. Further, and in the alternative, the Defendant avers that the Claimant requires the permission the owner of the relevant land - not merely another contractor or site agent not in possession - in order to commence proceedings.

7. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.
7. Accordingly it is denied that:
7.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant and the Claimant
7.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
7.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
8. In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
8.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
8.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
8.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
8.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
8.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.

9. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

10. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

11. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.