Less than 5 minutes a valid reason to refuse to pay a PCN?

Skewiff

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant MIL Collections or in the first instance One Parking Limited, for all of the following reasons any of which is fatal to the claimant’s case.
i. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case.
ii. The Claimant has no capacity to form a contract with the Defendant.
iii. The signage does not offer a contract with the Defendant.
iv. The Claimant provided no service to the Defendant.
v. Even if a contract could be formed, it would be void as in breach of unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations.
vi. The Claimant has no valid right to gain access to the Defendant’s personal details in order to pursue any claim in line with the Data Protection Act and has not the ability or right to approach the DVLA in order to ascertain ownership.

The Claimant has not disclosed a full Cause of Action.
With regard to the Particulars of Claim Notice.
The Claimant purchased the alleged debt from One Parking Limited on ***. Assignment notice sent (the day after) ***.
The Defendant believes the letter of assignment to be a false instrument produced by MIL Collections themselves.

Statement of Defence.
1. The Claimant does not own the car park and nor does he have any other interest in it and therefore lacks capacity to offer parking. Nor did the Claimant provide any service to the Defendant.

2. Even if the Claimant was capable of making an offer which is denied, the Defendant disputes that the signage displayed by the claimant cannot make a genuine contractual offer. In any event as a unilateral offer the sign cannot be seen as a representation of a meeting of minds, there was no genuine offer and the Claimant provided no consideration. The constituent elements of a contract was therefore absent and the Claimant has no case.

3. Even if a contract had been formed - it would be void. The Claimant was not acting in good faith and was in breach of the unfair terms in Consumer Contract Regulations. The Defendant refers the court to the concept of good faith as elucidated by the European Court of Justice in “Aziz v Caixa d Estalvis de Catalunya, Tarragona 1 Manresa 2013 3 CMLR 5 (para 69)” regarding the unfair terms directive.
With regard to the question of the circumstances in which such an imbalance arises "contrary to the requirements of good faith " , having regard to the sixteenth recital in the preamble to the directive and as stated in essence by the AG in point AG74 of her opinion ,the national court must assess for those purposes whether the seller or supplier dealing fairly and equitably with the consumer , could reasonably assume that the consumer would have agreed to such a term in individual contract negotiations .

4. The alleged assignment of debt notice on ***** did not have a signature nor did it come on correct One Parking Limited letterhead. It also has the same barcode as MIL Collections letter before action which arrived the day before. It is the Defendant’s belief that MIL Collections produced the letter making the document a false instrument.

5. The Claimant has provided no evidence that there was a valid assignment of debt, in the form of a deed of assignment signed by the original creditor, pursuant to S136 of the law of property Act 1993. Absent such evidence the Claimant has no locus in the matter.

6. Even if there was a valid deed of Assignment, the Claimant has no interest in, or privy to, any purported original contract and it is submitted that such an assignment would be champertous. The sole purpose is to enable the Claimant to instigate legal proceedings and on that basis the Court is asked to consider striking the matter out, as was the case in MIL Collections Ltd -v- Stephen Bowker, Case No. B1QZ7N32 Oldham County Court 15/01/2016.

7. The Defendant disputes the Claimant incurred £50 costs in administrative and collection fees. The judgment in VCS v Ibbotson (2012) makes clear that only the costs that directly result from the parking may be included, not an arbitrary proportion of normal business costs. A Retailer v Ms. B & MS. K (1UC71244) citing R+V Versicherung AG v Risk Assurance and Reinsurance Solutions SA (2006 EWHC 42) and Aerospace Publishing Ltd v Thames Water Utilities Ltd (2007 EWCA Civ 3) dismissed a claim for the costs of security staff dealing with shoplifters who had deliberately attempted to cause a loss to the Claimant, not merely “Not Clearly Displayed a Valid Permit”. The court stated that the Claimant had to establish that the conduct caused significant disruption to its business. Security people, far from being diverted from their usual activities, were in fact actively engaged in them and doing just what they were paid to do. Neither could any administrative or security costs be claimed. The amounts spent by the claimant would have been identical if the defendants had stayed at home or limited their shop-lifting to other establishments
The cost of administration staff involved with the processing of parking notices cannot be presented as a loss because their employment is essential to the Claimant’s revenue.

8. The Defendant would like to highlight that the area described as a P&D Car Park suffers from a number of issues which anyone making use of would need to confirm before trusting the area to be a legitimate car park.
It has a number of illegible signs alongside the “official” ones.
It is an area of waste dumping – couches, mattresses – along with cars parked outside of bays that do not have evidence of having paid to park, all of which add to confusion regarding the legitimacy of the signage.
The signs in the area, that aren’t defaced or degraded – are of extremely small font and are extremely hard to read. This would take some time to understand and consider.
The signage is of sparse placement and lack of clarity of terms were not bound to have been seen by drivers (as opposed to the signs in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis). Nor was the alleged 'charge' in sufficiently large lettering to meet the requirements of the CRA 2015
On this basis, a stay of less than 5 minutes is reasonably of sufficient time to review the signage and leave.

9. The Claimant has also failed to disclose the conduct that is complained of and has therefore brought a claim that discloses no cause of action. In the Particulars of Claim the Claimant's Statement of Truth has not been signed/verified and cannot be relied upon. The court is invited to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success as has been the case in many incoherent 'MIL Collections' robo-claims since the Bowker case B1QZ7N32, Oldham CC. It is submitted that this is a vexatious litigant, merely buying sets of photographs from parking firms for as little as £1, with the aim of inflating any damages for this claimant's own profit. This claimant is wantonly and officiously meddling in cases where they have no prior interest; this is frivolous litigation with no evidence nor any particulars that could give rise to a claim in law.

I believe this statement to be the Truth.

Coupon-mad

Changes suggested:



I am <full name as shown on Particulars of Claim>, the Defendant in this matter and my address for service is xx xxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx.

I am the registered keeper of the car in question and can only be potentially held liable for a parking charge, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the POFA). I deny any liability for any sum at all, to the Claimant MIL Collections.

As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I seek the Court’s permission to amend and supplement this defence as may be necessary, upon disclosure of the Claimant’s case. This initial lengthy defence is in response to the very sparse Particulars of Claim and the failure of the Claimant to narrow the issues, identify the head or heads of action or provide evidence of the alleged breach of contract or any right they may have to pursue the sum claimed.


Statement of Defence:

1. The Claimant has no standing or interest in the land and nor did 'One Parking' who allegedly served a parking charge notice (PCN).

2. No PCN was found on the car, nor is any PCN evidenced as served at the location.

3. No evidence has been adduced that the alleged breach occurred at all. It is contended that the driver was merely reading the signs when a predatory parking company took some very rushed photos, with no PCN served.

4. A driver must be allowed a reasonable time to consider terms, then decide whether to stay or leave. An immediate PCN purportedly issued in this time (or issued later by post, based on photos taken with no grace period allowed) contravenes the parking company's ATA Code of Practice.

5. This Claimant has no capacity to form a contract with drivers or the right to sue a registered keeper under the POFA. The signage offered no clear contract and was not in the name of this Claimant.

6. The alleged assignment of debt notice did not have a signature, nor did it come on correct One Parking letterhead. It also has the same barcode as MIL Collections' Letter before Action. The Claimant has provided no evidence that there was a valid assignment of debt, in the form of a deed of assignment signed by the original creditor, pursuant to S136 of the Law of Property Act 1993. It is the Defendant’s belief that MIL Collections produced the purported 'assignment' letter themselves and that the document is a false instrument.

7. The Defendant disputes the Claimant or parking company incurred £50 costs in 'administrative and collection fees' and disputes that these costs were stated on the signs and were ever incorporated into the alleged contract. It is believed this is a sum made up out of thin air; an attempt at double recovery which is precluded by the CPR and by the POFA.

8. The Defendant would like to highlight that the area described as a P&D Car Park suffers from a number of issues which anyone making use of would need to confirm before trusting the area to be a legitimate car park.
(a) It has illegible/damaged signs, a non-prominent pay & display machine, unclear terms and no entrance sign, contrary to the ATA Code of Practice.
(b) It is an area of waste dumping of mattresses, etc. and cars are parked outside of bays with no evidence of having paid to park. It does not have the appearance of managed private land.
(c) The signs that aren’t defaced or degraded are of extremely small font and are extremely hard to read, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requirement for transparency and clarity of terms in plain, intelligible English.
(d) The alleged 'parking charge' is hidden in small print, not in sufficiently large lettering to meet the high bar of the Beavis case signs, the CRA 2015 or the requirement for 'adequate notice' defined under the POFA.

9. As regards the purported 'parking charge' the claimant is put to strict proof of the following:
(a) that any PCN was served on the windscreen. A letter from One Parking states there was a PCN, as if it were a fact, but no such PCN was evidenced by One Parking, nor by this Claimant, nor was any PCN found on the car.
(b) that the driver did not pay and display or was in the process of doing so or merely reading the signs at the time of the photographs of the car.
(c) that the parking company complied with their ATA Code of Practice as regards grace periods and signage (including entrance signs) and all other requirements.
(d) that the parking company complied with the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 in all respects. It is averred that the wording and timing of the service of letters failed to comply, therefore there is no law under which I can be held liable as keeper.
(e) that there is evidence as to the identity of the driver.
(f) that the parking company obtained express written prior permission from the DVLA for this alleged assignment. It is averred that such sharing of DVLA data specifically breaches the KADOE contract and the Data Protection principles.

10. The Claimant has failed to disclose the conduct that is complained of and has brought a claim that discloses no cause of action. The Claimant's Statement of Truth under the Particulars of Claim has not been signed/verified and cannot be relied upon.

11. It is submitted that this is a vexatious litigant, buying a few photographs from parking firms for as little as £1 with the aim of inflating 'damages'. This claimant is wantonly and officiously meddling in cases where they have no prior interest; this is frivolous litigation for bare profit by a third party with no evidence, no contract and no particulars that could give rise to a claim in law.

12. The Claimant has no interest in, nor were they privy to, any purported original contract and it is submitted that such an assignment would be champertous. The sole interest of this Claimant is to instigate legal proceedings and in recent cases their claims have been struck out without a hearing, as was the case in MIL Collections Ltd -v- Stephen Bowker, Case No. B1QZ7N32 at Oldham County Court on 15/01/2016.

The court is respectfully invited to use its case management powers to strike the matter out forthwith due to his Claimant's vexatious claim and want of cause of action.

This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.



Signed:

Date:

*************************************************8

Skewiff

LOL - you have to love IT :-)



We are sorry, but your request has been rejected owing to one or more technical reasons. Please check your input and try again. If you continue to get this message then please contact the Money Claim helpdesk.

It can be contacted for support between 9:00am and 5:00pm, Monday to Friday on:

Tel: 0845 601 5935
Fax: 0845 601 5889

If you prefer to write your query instead, please contact:

Money Claim Online
Northampton County Court
21-27, St. Katherine Street
Northampton
NN1 2LH

Or email to customerservice.mcol@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk

Please make a note of the following support id:

Skewiff

Ive emailed the submission to the email address given, and will try again when I am on land

Ian011

Skewiff wrote: »

Tel: 0845 601 5935
Fax: 0845 601 5889

Those phone and fax numbers are out of date. They changed to 03 numbers some time ago.

Looks like someone forgot to update the message.

Skewiff

Is this normal ?

https://1drv.ms/i/s!AqJ5vNWGO3GbhPwdX1j0_geOXDM2HA

It seems that the online portal is only allowing me to admit and pay ?

Coupon-mad

Top left says the defence was received.

DQ next.

Skewiff

DQ being returned today to both places (court and mil). Out of interest, who is likely to win the "I want my local court" game? MIL's DQ wants Truro and I would really rather not head to there .

And I will allow for mediation - which will be revolve around me asking them to stop before I counter sue them, now that I have information that they didnt correctly go to DVLA.

Grimble

Defendant gets choice of court.

Quentin

Skewiff wrote: »

.... I will allow for mediation.....

Not recommended:


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5546325