Parking Charge for Stopping/Waiting less than 20 seconds!

backtobasix

Hi,

I've put together a defence and would like the help of the forum before I submit it.

Summary of Incident - I received a PCN for stopping/waiting on land for less than a minute. POPLA appealed failed, so I am now at the County Court stage.

I have put together the following defence. Please can you cast your eyes over it and provide any relevant feedback. Many thanks


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXXXXX
BETWEEN:

(Claimant)

-and-

(Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE STATEMENT
________________________________________
1. It is acknowledged that the defendant, XXXXXXXXX, residing at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

2. The claim form is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the claimant’s case. The particulars of claim fail to meet CPR16.4 and PD16 7.3-7.5 and merely provide a date, due date, and an "amount" consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the Claimant's solicitors.
The claim also states "parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable" which gives no 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' or contractual 'unpaid fees'.
Because of this, I have had to cover all eventualities in defending such a 'cut & paste' claim which has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.
Therefore, as an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant's case.

3. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action.
HMCTS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA
I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers.
I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

4. I suggest that 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.

5. The alleged debt as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

6. This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes.
Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.

7. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court.

8. It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.

9. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. The signs were insufficient in terms of their distribution, wording hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
a) Sporadic and confusing site/entrance signage - breach of the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
b) ‘Vehicles will be clamped sign’ (illegal since 2012 - another serious breach of the BPA CoP, because ALL clamping signs were required to be removed, at the latest, by 2013).
c) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
d) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
e) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.

10. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.
It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.
As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

11.Grace Period Not Applied by the Claimant - As a member of the BPA at the time of the incident, the Claimant would be subject to their Code of Practice which states in Section 13: Grace Period:
13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are
going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow
them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance
team or our agents ask what it is.

The vehicle was on the land for less than 1 minute and the Defendant feels this constitutes a
reasonable grace period to allow an informed decision and, following the decision to leave
the car park, to leave without charge. As a result, the 3 above conditions have not been met
by the Claimant.

12 . I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

backtobasix

bumping this up - any feedback greatly appreciated,

Coupon-mad

Bumping this up...

hoohoo

This looks to have covered all the points to me.

Coupon-mad

I was just thinking back to this thread where there was a clamping sign and NO PARKING prohibitive signs:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5472519

Mark the Shark commented:

The "signs" have been inserted in to a jpeg file as giff files and the image saved again as a jpeg the image is a most obvious and very poorly done fake.

There was an obscured behind a large bin, now-you-see-it, now-you-don't entrance sign which magically materialised in the POPLA evidence where the tarmac looked older. But the OP took a photo showing NO entrance sign communicating that the car park was managed by a BPA AOS member - and either way, the massive red & white entrance sign overshadows all others.

And it was said that the contract showed two different companies on it, did yours? And was it clear whether any grace period was meant to apply or was the contract redacted (sorry the thread is long, can't find it all!).

You could also ask if the Claimant is the same 'Park Direct' which used to have form as clampers with predatory practices which became a criminal offence in 2012:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1213482/Gone-30-seconds-How-cowboy-clampers-pounced-half-minute-claim-150-fine.html

If they are not that same company, how does this Claimant explain the illegal 'clamping' signs being up, two years after the BPA set a deadline for them all to be removed, across the Country. As the name is similar, Park Direct, and the conduct is no different (minus the clamps) it is reasonable to assume this may be a company with the same controlling minds and modus operandi and such predatory practice is not something the courts should support or the sort of aggressive business practice that motorists should have to endure.

You could then add a link to the Government's Press Release, pledging to stamp out exactly this sort of poor practice by private parking firms, who were singled out:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/government-announce-ccj-review-due-to.html

I think you need something about putting the Claimant to strict proof of the exact signs that were there that day because there is evidence and photos in the public domain showing the entrance sign not there at all.

And I would add something about prohibitive/forbidding signs, like this argument:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/pcm-uk-signage-does-not-create-contract.html

Different parking firm but it shows the legal argument about this sort of site signage.

backtobasix

Thanks you for your points. In response to some of them....

Here is the one of the photos that the operator provided as evidence,

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1ssz7yr88j107xz/Site%20Images%201.jpg?dl=0

The larger sign for the Gym clearly obscures the main entrance parking restriction signs. However it doesn't look doctored to me, as compared to the photos in the other thread you linked to.

Also, here is the Site Contract I was provided

https://www.dropbox.com/s/y7oe6ehy1bsk8yy/Site%20contract.pdf?dl=0

I cannot see 2 different companies mentioned, unlesss I am missing something. The site contract should be the same as the one in the other Thread. Also no mention of Grace Period.

There was an obscured behind a large bin, now-you-see-it, now-you-don't entrance sign which magically materialised in the POPLA evidence where the tarmac looked older. But the OP took a photo showing NO entrance sign communicating that the car park was managed by a BPA AOS member - and either way, the massive red & white entrance sign overshadows all others.

And it was said that the contract showed two different companies on it, did yours? And was it clear whether any grace period was meant to apply or was the contract redacted (sorry the thread is long, can't find it all!).

Coupon-mad

That photo does look as if the entrance sign is added...something looks odd about it.

fisherjim

This sort of contract explains why sites come out with the excuses about not being able to get a charge cancelled:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/y7oe6ehy1bsk8yy/Site%20contract.pdf?dl=0

"If you request to cancel a parking charge notice a £20 admin fee will be payable by the client"

Even though we are making the rules up as we go along, and are damaging your business, but you should have realised that before you signed you daft Muppets!

backtobasix

OK here's an update

I sent my defence and received an acknowledgement from HMCTS.

Around a week later I receive 2 letters from Gladstones (dated the same)

The first letter (which I was expecting) enclosed a copy of their Directions Questionnaire indicating that they would like to proceed on papers Only.

The second letter (which I wasnt expecting) states:

' We act for park Direct Ltd and have recently obtained Judgemnt against you on their behalf. You will have no doubt received a copy of the Judgement from the court.

It is important that when a Judgement is registered agaisnt you then this could seriously affect your chances of obtaining credit in the future.....

We trust that you are eager toa void the County Court Judgement remaining on your record. If payment is made in full (£262) to us within one month from the date of Judgement we will notify the Court and Judgement should be removed from your record entriely.


Firstly, I have not received any Judgement from the Court. I havent received anything since the acknowledgement that my defecnce had been received. Based on Bargepoles thread here I should be sent a Directions Questionnaire N180 form, which i havent received.

Is the second letter from Gladstones just a ploy to pay ? Has anyone received something similar? Or do I need to check that a Judgement has been made against me?

Quentin

Sounds a con trick.


Assuming you haven't moved etc, then double check with the court that the case is ongoing and then make a strong complaint about this behaviour by a "solicitor" to the SRA