UKCPM ticket no NtD, NtK arrived more than 14 days after dated.

tidegu

Hi, before I send out the reply, can anyone help me to have a look? The red are my "creative" part, not sure if I supposed to say those. And sorry for putting RED CAPITALS in the paragraph for highlighting inline questions.


IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No.: xxxxx

Between

xxxxx
(Claimant)
-and-
xxxxx
(Defendant)
___________________________________________________________________________

DEFENCE STATEMENT
___________________________________________________________________________





1.1. I am the Defendant, xxxx, DOB xxxxx, and reside at xxxxx and was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time in question, Reg Number xxxxx.

1.2. The Claim relates to an unwarranted sum arising from the vehicle having been allegedly parked at xxxxx.

1.3. The driver has not been identified by this Claimant, who appear to be pursuing me simply because I was the registered keeper of the car, yet without using the only applicable statute which would have enabled a parking firm to rely on ‘keeper liability’.

1.4. Given the passage of time, I am unable to recall who was driving and in any event. There is no lawful obligation upon a registered keeper to assist a parking company which has failed to either (a) evidence the driver or (b) in the alternative, utilise the statute available to hold keepers liable for the conduct of a driver. If the Claimant has evidence of the driver’s identity, I put them to strict proof of same.

1.5. I deny each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim (PoC), or implied in Pre-action correspondence.

Preliminary matters:

2.1. The Claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer).

2.2. The PoC do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed, the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states ‘parking charges’ which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or ‘breach of contract’. I have specifically asked this question in the response of the Letter Before Claim (LBA) but have not yet received any response. So I have had to cover all eventualities and this has denied me a fair chance to defend this in an informed way.

3. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim.

In further support of there being a want of cause of action:

4.1. The PCN was issued on a poorly signed private road where the Driver had stopped SHOULD I USE THE DRIVER AND SAY STOPPED INSTEAD OF PARKING?. The Driver was completely unaware that the site was ‘private land’ or being enforced by any restrictive terms, due to insufficient signage. I refer to the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice (CoP) Part E, highlighting that adequate and clear entrance signs are required.

4.2. There were no entrance signs at all to show that drivers were entering an area of ‘parking enforcement’ or ‘private land’.

5.1. There were two British Parking Association (BPA)’s logo at the lower right corner of the signage, which indicates the Claimant was a member of BPA. However, at the time of event, the Claimant was no longer a member of BPA, but a member of IPC. The incorrect wording on the signage does not create any possible contract.

5.2. The wrong information provided on the signage prohibited the Driver to make the correct decision whether to park there. There have sufficient reasons for the Driver to decide to park in a car park that managed by a BPA member but not by an IPC member.

5.3. The IAS is a trading name of the IPC; whose Directors are Will Hurley and John Davies. These Directors, having overseen my IAS appeal being unfairly refused, have now filed this claim because they are also the directors of Gladstones solicitors. It is submitted that this chain of events is founded upon a conflict of interest and operates in breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (CPUTRs) and is contrary to good faith.

5.4. These matters had clearly arised to the Claimant at the appeal process, requested a cancellation of PCN or provide true indenpent appeal service by BPA, namely POPLA. The Claimant ignored both request and failed to provide a POPLA code to allow the independent appeal process take place.

6. The Claimant did not comply with the Part B, section 15 of the CoP regarding ‘grace periods’. The photographic evidence submitted by the Claimant are date and time stamped. It contains 8 photos which the earliest one shows the vehicle at 16:55:45 from the rear. The latest photo with vehicle shown was from the rear again at 16:57:14. It is obvious that the parking operative only allowed me to find and read the signage for 1 minute and 29 seconds. Considering the lightening condition and the insufficient signage, I believe the Claimant failed to give a sufficient grace period for the driver to make a decision. Finally, at 16:58:31, a photo shows the signage under flash. None of these photos shows a PCN on the vehicle, and, in fact, no Notice to Driver (NTD) is given in this event.

7.1. The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case') yet such an assertion is not supported by any similarity in the location, circumstances nor signage. Absent any offer or agreement on a charge, the Beavis case does not assist the claimant and in fact, supports this defence.

7.2. The Supreme Court Judges in the Beavis case held that a CoP is effectively ‘regulation’ for the private parking industry, full compliance with which is both expected and binding upon any parking operator.

8.!!In addition to the original ‘parking charge’, believed to be £100, for which liability is denied, the Claimant’s legal representatives, Gladstone Solicitors, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding ‘Legal Representative’s Costs’ of £50.00 and £51.20 (COPIED FROM A TEMPLATE AND NO IDEAR WHAT IT IS), which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery.!

9.1. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.

9.2. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged ‘unauthorised’ parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.

10. As was confirmed in the Beavis case, ParkingEye could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).

11. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

12.!!On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.

13.!!On the 19th Audust 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 - 7.5. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars, which they failed to do, and the court confirmed the claim was struck out.

14.1. The court is invited to dismiss the claim, due to no cause of action nor prospects of success, and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

14.2.!In the event that the Claim is not struck out and/or that the Claimant is required to serve more details Particulars, I seek the Court’s permission to amend and supplement this interim defence, as may be required upon disclosure of the Claimant’s case.!

15. The facts and information in this defence are true and the Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.

tidegu

Any help? Thanks!

Grimble

6, allowed me?? allowed the driver.

tidegu

Revised. Thanks! How do you think the response? Are they relevant? Did I miss any point? Any point should not be brought up to the response? Many thanks!

Coupon-mad

I would remove 5.4 or re-word it as there are typos and it doesn't quite make sense and you would never have got POPLA from an IPC member (regardless of a BPA logo on signs):

5.4. These matters had clearly arised to the Claimant at the appeal process, requested a cancellation of PCN or provide true indenpent appeal service by BPA, namely POPLA. The Claimant ignored both request and failed to provide a POPLA code to allow the independent appeal process to take place.

And to me, this in #1.4 makes no sense, because you later describe the event & signs in detail!:

Given the passage of time, I am unable to recall who was driving and in any event.

Just remove that bit so #1.4 starts: ''There is no lawful obligation...''

tidegu

Many thanks C-M.

I tried to put POPLA was because in one of the replies it vaguely said it is a breach of contract, and I was trying to say the contract on the board has incorrect logo therefore the contract is invalid. Is it a valid point to this case?

I will remove the sentence from 1.4. Thanks for mentioning that. To me, I was thinking that the photo evidence is suffice for me to describe in detail, and I also have opportunity to visit the site at a later time to confirm the details. But anyway, I thought again, it shouldn't make any difference to this case, thus a removal is preferred.

How about other points in your mind? Thanks!

Coupon-mad

I think it is fine and would remove 5.4 as well because it doesn't add anything useful. You have the good points you need at this stage. Good one, nice work on your part.

tidegu

Thanks! I tried to submit it online yesterday, but the system kept complaining there were some technical errors. Do you know how can I send my response in email? I remember some other member did so to override the length restriction of the response, but don't know if I sent to the correct address - customerservice.mcol@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk or ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk or ccbc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk . And what should I include in the email? Deadline should be TODAY!

Umkomaas

Phone the court and ask them to assist.

Redx

you are "supposed" to print it out as per the details BARGEPOLE posted months ago, then send it in by post (not online)

too late for that now if you have left it to the last minute , so make sure you get the correct email address , send it with a PDF attachment of your defence and include all the relevant details like MCOL reference etc too

as mentioned above , seek the assistance of the court staff , make sure they get it when you send it and make sure they add it to your file at the same time

dont lose this because you have left it all to the last minute and cannot post it for the same reasons

this is the email listed on their main webpage

[EMAIL="mcol@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk"]mcol@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk[/EMAIL]

this is the one listed for their helpdesk

[EMAIL="ccbc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk"]ccbc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk[/EMAIL]

Telephone: 0300 123 1057
Telephone: 0160 461 9402
Monday to Friday, 8:45am to 5pm