Ace Security Services

Coupon-mad

OK we will need to perfect this defence to be more specific & relevant, as suggested earlier. I can take a look after work at home tonight.

bigsej

Thanks. I really do appreciate it!

bigsej

Any update Coupon-mad?

Coupon-mad

I am on the case.

bigsej

Awesome!

Coupon-mad

I stay up late, a cup of tea beckons so don't worry about my silence right now.

I will sit down in a mo to re-write your defence only - and nothing else here tonight - or I won't be at my desk at 7.45 in the morning!

bigsej

That's some amazing dedication. Hats off to you madam!

Coupon-mad

1) It is admitted that the defendant, Mr XXXXXX XXXXX, residing at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

2) The vehicle has a resident's permit and it is common ground that this was displayed at all times.

3) The vehicle was at all times when at the residence, properly parked (SORNED after minor accident damage but legally parked) and it is believed it is common ground that it was neither causing an obstruction nor was it unauthorised, being owned by a permitted resident.

4) It is denied that any 'parking charges or indemnity costs' (whatever they might be) are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

5) This is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors in two separate claims: xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx. The Particulars are not clear and concise, so I have had to cover all eventualities in defending a 'cut & paste' claim, twice. This has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend these two claims in an informed way. As defendant I face two sets of court costs if the claimant prevails and two hearings for essentially the same unfounded allegation which at best, should be heard together if not both struck out earlier at the Judge's discretion.

6) This claim and the other very similar one merely states: ''parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable'' 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' or contractual 'unpaid fees'. Nor are any clear times/dates or coherent grounds for any lawful claim particularised, nor were any details provided to evidence any contract created nor any copy of this contract, nor explanation for the vague description 'parking charges' and 'indemnity costs'.

7) 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. HMCS 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.

8) 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.

9) 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.

10) No evidence has been supplied by this 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. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.

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 claimant cannot overrule the rights of way and easements of the lease or introduce any new terms or charges subsequent to the permit agreement, as made when the permit was accepted by the resident.

13) Parking terms cannot be re-offered by a third party contractor on a day-to-day basis (on far more onerous and potentially, completely variable terms) because these were never incorporated into the permission to park as granted by the landowner, which was a stand-alone contract, concluded at the point in time of the provision of a permit which carried very few terms of use and no 'parking charges' nor 'indemnity costs'.

14) In the event that the court finds a contract based on signage can supersede the permit terms already agreed and the lease, I put the claimant to strict proof of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this claimant which enable these charges to be pursued in court by this contractor, for these alleged contravention(s), whatever they may be.

15) The alleged debt(s) as described in the two claims are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

16) Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA), a registered keeper can only be held liable for the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (a sum which is less than both claims). This depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts.

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

18) Notwithstanding the provisions of the POFA and/or the existing easements, rights of way and the permit agreement already concluded, it is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event.

19) It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs or even their unlawful, fixed sum card surcharge for payments - and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add an extra sums and that those sums formed part of the permit/parking contract formed with the resident in the first instance.

20) 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.

21) The claimant appears to have misused my VRN data by 'processing' it to investigate the SORN status, against the DPA Principles, more than once. Misuse of personal data is a tort, the remedy for which would be a claim for damages which I may pursue separately once these claims are struck out.

22) I believe that the claimant has accessed the DVLA database for my data in a non-parking context which is unsupported by their KADOE contract and not a matter for keeper liability under the POFA. I am having to guess but it seems this claimant believes they have authority to pursue 'penalties' for untaxed vehicles, a matter surely within the remit of the DVLA alone.

23) 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.

24) I request the court strike out both claims xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxx 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.

bigsej

Wow! I've read through the entire defence and can see how you've pretty much re-written the entire thing! I cannot thank you enough regardless of the outcome. You have spent your valuable time to help a clueless victim. God bless you madam!
So I will email this today. Should I email it twice under both claim numbers or once is sufficient?

Coupon-mad

Email it twice, once with one claim number and 'defence statement' in the subject line and separately with the other, making sure where I've left parts in red, (twice, once near the top and once near the end) you've added both and checked they are shown correctly of course, no typo with a claim number or it can slip through the net! And of course your name and address needs adding (I removed the date of birth, not needed).

If it is not 'common ground' that the permit was displayed in the OTHER claim, if that was about the permit, then remove point #2 from THAT second defence and renumber all below it up one number, if you are sure that's what the case is about (if unsure what the claim is about, leave it in).