Parking Charge Notice

LaurenHeath123

I've just looked through my pictures and found one from 2016 (which I think is when the newer signs were brought out and it stated a charge of £100 for persons without a permit. Luckily I still have my old permit, and if it goes to court I'll take a new one. My in laws pay thousands of pounds to park there and they still give them parking fines, its crazy.

Coupon-mad

Since 2015, I'm pretty sure they have changed the signs which is a bummer because I didn't think to take pictures.

As it's Swansea you might want to see if LoadsofChildren123 knows about this car park. She is legally qualified and she posts on weekdays, mainly. You could find her posts and read some.

LaurenHeath123

I've had a quick look and couldn't see anything about this car park but then its not a 'traditional car park' in the sense that its a tiny strip of land behind some commercial buildings, enough for maybe 10 cars which the shop owners pay for annually.

Coupon-mad

LoadsofChildren123 has dealt with Millennium, at a SA1 car park where the signs have since changed, so it sounds very similar to the case she posted on recently, the one about Admiral. I think you should use some of her wording to beef up your defence.

Who do your in-laws pay for the right to park, and did they have that right before the PPC rocked up?

I think your defence needs some specifics as the first points, such as (bits in red are where I'm not sure of the facts, are your in-laws shop-owners then? Who do they lease the shop from and who do they pay for parking rights?):


- It has been conceded by the Claimant's Solicitors, that a permit was displayed and it is common ground that the car was not improperly parked, nor unauthorised.

- Our family pay thousands of pounds to park at this location and have primacy of contract (explain the ownership - of a shop? - and who is paid for this right).

- This Claimant has no 'legitimate interest' nor commercial justification for seeking a sum significantly above any possible damages claim and they cannot rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67; indeed the findings at the Supreme Court expose this business model as exactly the type of unjustified parking charge which falls foul of Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty and will be unrecoverable.

- There is reasonable understanding we have a legal grant and right to park in a non obstructive manner. The site landowner covenanted to give tenants uninterrupted quiet enjoyment of the property and this is harassment.

- There is no mention of any ‘parking scheme’ in the signed tenancy agreement, nor any charges for parking. The claimant cannot re-offer parking rights as if it were consideration, on more onerous terms than before, when this right is already granted within a concluded contract, of which this Claimant is not a party.

- This Claimant not being a party to our family's tenancy agreement means that they cannot lawfully vary that agreement. This Claimant has no right whatsoever to pursue me for a breach of contract because no such contract with them can exist when the car was authorised to park, relying on the primacy of contract enjoyed by our family, {shop owners?} who are in possession at this location.

- The introduction of a permit system, which unilaterally imposes new obligations a set charge for any 'failure to comply' is not, under any interpretation, a regulation which can be imposed pursuant to any clauses in the tenancy agreement.

- Even if the landowner has authorised this scheme, it is averred that the intention of such a permit system is solely to discourage trespassers, not to unfairly penalise authorised shop-owners by taking photos of their visibly-displayed permit at a skewed angle.

- In Saeed v Plustrade [2001] EWCA Civ 2011, an attempt to remove an existing right to park, and an attempt to charge for parking, was made by a Managing Agent. It was held that parking restrictions (including the introduction of a permit system) which caused detriment to tenants was in breach of the principle that ''a grantor shall not derogate from his grant”.

- The entire Millennium parking 'scheme' at this location should be put under investigation and legal scrutiny to prevent further waste of the Court's time, going forward. This is exactly the type of claim that should be struck out by UK Courts and punitive costs be awarded, due to the vexatious and wholly unreasonable behaviour of this Claimant and their Solicitors; the latter not coming to this matter with clean hands, since Gladstones are run by the same two Directors as run the Trade Body which enables rogue parking firms like Millennium to continue to operate in this way.

LaurenHeath123

They are restaurant owners and they have just had new landlords so I'm not sure who they pay anymore.

Will it matter that I'm not a party to the contract nor do I have a connection other than family ties to the restaurant?

I will definitely amend my defence to state some of the points.

Coupon-mad

You do have a connection because you had the permit. You were authorised, same as the in-laws were.

LaurenHeath123

Thank you, Coupon Mad. I have a visitor permit so not sure if I have the same rights etc. My defence is below: They have a lease rather than and are leaseholders.

1) It is admitted that the defendant, xxxxxxx residing at xxxxxxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

2) It is denied that any indemnity costs are owed, and any debt is denied in its entirety.

3) The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained, and no evidence has yet been supplied by the claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. It is reiterated that:
a. The Claimant did not identify the driver
b. The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach. It is the defendants right to choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper.

4) The claimant presents a completely unsubstantiated and inflated sum on account for costs, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors in their claim. The Particulars are not clear and concise, and the claimant has not provided enough information to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract, which it is alleged was broken, have not been provided.
1. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
2. The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
3. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
4. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action, which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence.
It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. There is little information regarding why the charge arose stating ‘breaching the terms’, neither what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything, which could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action. The continuous threatening letters received by the debt collectors Zenith Collections, and Debt Recovery Plus Ltd and Gladstone’s Solicitors refer to the address as ‘Orchard Street, Swansea’ however, on looking at the Land Registry map search and Google maps, the area in question provides for little or no parking to which would be under the ownership of Swansea City Council in any event. A clearer indication of the alleged ‘car park’ would have allowed the defendant to produce a more accurate and fair defence. Furthermore, the defendant’s request for evidence was to ascertain the location of the said car park due to the claimant’s vague location, and unfortunately, the defendant produced the data of a different vehicle in a different location.

5. On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstone’s 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.’
f) On the 27thJuly 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were inefficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.

6) This claim merely states: “parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable” which does not give an accurate 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'. Nor are any clear times or coherent grounds for any lawful claim particularised, nor were any details provided to evidence any contract created nor any copy of this neither contract, nor explanation for the vague description 'parking charges' and 'indemnity costs'. As stated above, evidence that was produced by the claimant was the data of another registered keeper and therefore, a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.

7) Despite the requests for documentation and evidence by the defendant, the claimant has not produced valid documents to date. It is reasonable for the defendant to request sight of documents and evidence as there is doubt as to the whether the claimant invoked Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 with fully compliant documents. As stated within a letter sent by the defendant to Gladstone’s solicitors, it is the belief of the defendant that the letter of claim does not comply with the requirements of the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct and Protocols. The defendant requested a fully compliant Letter Before Claim from the claimant in order to assess the facts and produce a more detailed response to their correspondence.

8) 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 and not checking for a true cause of action. HMCS has 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.

9) 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. The defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to the significant detriment of the unrepresented Defendant.

10) It is suggested by the defendant 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.

11) It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.

12) The alleged debt as described in the claim is an unenforceable penalty, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

13) The claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case') yet ParkingEye would not have been able to recover any sum at all without 'agreement on the charge'. In the Beavis case, the £85 charge was held to be allowable to act as a disincentive in that case only, based upon very specific and unique facts in a 'complex' case involving the existence of a specific legitimate interest from the landowners regarding turnover of parking spaces and very clear, brief and prominent signs. In fact, the Supreme Court Judges observed that it would be unfair if drivers were to be penalised for parking slightly out of bay lines when causing no obstruction (this was specifically mentioned at the hearing and was clearly not something they would have allowed). Further, it was held at the Court of Appeal that a parking charge sum of £135 would fail the penalty rule. The authority for this is 'Parkingeye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1338 (17 October 2012)'.

14) Notwithstanding that the Claimant claims no right to pursue the Defendant as the registered keeper under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if it cannot identify the driver. This distinguishes the case from Elliott vs Loake (1982) in which there was irrefutable evidence of the drivers identity and moreover, this case was a criminal case and has since been dismissed previously by Judges in cases brought by Gladstones Solicitors. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with and the claimant may not quote reasonable assumption. PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, "There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort"(2015).

15) 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. The lack of diligence in this claim demonstrates admirably that at best a ‘copy and paste' is the closest a human, legally trained or not, came to the information transmitted from claimant to the Money Claims Online system. There are no real costs and POFA prevents claims exceeding the sum on the original parking notice.

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

17) In the pre court stage the Claimant’s solicitor withheld necessary information when requested. The defendant requested a number of documents and also, requested photographic evidence. Some seven months following the defendant’s requests, the claimant’s solicitors provided a vague letter dated 7th April 2017 with contradictory statements such as the contradiction between Recovery Plus Ltd whom stated that the reason for issue was ‘no permit displayed’ yet the letter from Gladstones Solicitors states “It is not disputed that you displayed a permit; however, as is required by the sign, the permit on display wasn't 'valid' as it was obscured and not fully displaying meaning our Client's warden was unable to ascertain the validity of the permit.” As such, It has been conceded by the Claimant's Solicitors, that a permit was displayed and it is common ground that the car was not improperly parked, nor unauthorised. Furthermore, Gladstones Solicitor’s letter provided attached photos in response to the defendant’s requests for evidence. The photos attached were of another vehicle, which was not and has never been in the defendant’s ownership, as confirmed by the DVLA verbally. Written confirmation from the DVLA is awaited. Moreover, the evidence of the car park was clearly not in the area as suggested on correspondence from Gladstone’s Solicitors and I would therefore conclude that the claimant’s Solicitors have breached the Data Protection Act 1998 and would question their professionalism and due diligence.

So they think that you should pay them £100 just because their warden couldn't quite read everything, despite recognising it as a legitimate permit? I rather hope a judge will disagree!

18) 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; proof of this can be seen from the significant time lapse between receipt of the defendant’s letters and the claimant’s thinly produced responses, and their urgency to submit an application to the court without providing relevant information in the first instance. As such, the defendant reserves the right to keep a note of wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter. Furthermore, the defendant does not believe that costs should be incurred on the basis that a legitimate permit was recognised by the warden albeit that the warden was allegedly unable to read some of the information displayed on the permit.

19) There is reasonable understanding that the defendant’s family have a legal grant and right to park in a non obstructive manner. The site landowner covenanted to give tenants uninterrupted quiet enjoyment of the property and this is harassment. There is no mention of any ‘parking scheme’ in the lease, nor any charges for parking. The claimant cannot re-offer parking rights as if it were consideration, on more onerous terms than before, when this right is already granted within a concluded contract, of which this Claimant is not a party. This Claimant not being a party to our family's lease means that they cannot lawfully vary that agreement. This Claimant has no right whatsoever to pursue the defendant for a breach of contract because no such contract with them can exist when the car was authorised to park, relying on the primacy of contract enjoyed by the defendant’s family whom are leaseholders to a restaurant and are in possession at this location. Even if the landowner has authorised this scheme, it is averred that the intention of such a permit system is solely to discourage trespassers, not to unfairly penalise authorised leaseholders by taking photos of their visibly-displayed permit at a skewed angle. It was confirmed in Saeed v Plustrade [2001] EWCA Civ 2011, an attempt to remove an existing right to park, and an attempt to charge for parking, was made by a Managing Agent. It was held that parking restrictions (including the introduction of a permit system) which caused detriment to tenants was in breach of the principle that ''a grantor shall not derogate from his grant”. Furthermore, The entire Millennium parking 'scheme' at this location should be put under investigation and legal scrutiny to prevent further waste of the Court's time, going forward. This is exactly the type of claim that should be struck out by UK Courts and punitive costs be awarded, due to the vexatious and wholly unreasonable behaviour of this Claimant and their Solicitors; the latter not coming to this matter with clean hands, since Gladstones are run by the same two Directors as run the Trade Body which enables rogue parking firms like Millennium to continue to operate in this way.


20) It is requested by the defendant that 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 Gladstone’s' 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.

LaurenHeath123

Submitting my defence by email now but wondering how I do the heading bit with the lines etc? I've got the font and spacing etc sorted but just unsure how to do the heading bit.

LaurenHeath123

Submitted - thank you to everyone on here that has helped me with this defence statement

I hope they drop the case but I know that my in-laws will not be paying the 'parking charges' anymore.

LaurenHeath123

UPDATE:
I have now received the claimant's Directions Questionnaire along with their acknowledgement of my defence statement.


What are the next steps? - I will have a proper read over it this evening but it doesn't seem to indicate I do anything.


Do I fill out a directions questionnaire? - I will reject an oral hearing.