County court claim form

andyjok

Yes claim form says particulars will be sent within 14 days. Thanks

andyjok

Received my particulars today.

andyjok

particulars of claim
1. At all material times the claimant managed the car park the address of which is stated on the attached schedule of information. The car park is private property.

2. By way of background, the claimant uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition ("ANRP") cameras at entrance and exit of the car park, which identify time of arrival and departure of vehicles from the car park.

3. There are many clear and visible signs in the car park advising drivers of the terms and conditions of use. Drivers are permitted to park in the car park in accordance with the terms displayed on the signage, and these signs constitute an offer by the claimant to enter into a contract with drivers.

4. The key terms of the signs are summarised in the attached schedule of information.

5. When the Defendant parked their vehicle (on the date and time as set out in the attached schedule of information) in the car they accepted, by their conduct, the terms and conditions of parking. See vine v Waltham Forest London Borough Council (2000) 4 All ER 169.

6.The defendant breached the terms and conditions of the site and, as such is liable to pay the claimant the amounts as set out in the attached schedule of information.

7. The Supreme Court judgement in the case of parkingeye limited v Beavis has established that it is both legal and commercially justifiable for car park operators to implement a disincentive, such as the above, so as to efficiently manage the car park for the benefit of its users. Our charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable, and falls within the British parking association's guidelines as stated in their code of practise.

8. The claimant (directly/through its agents) was left with no alternative but to escalate the matter as a result of their non-payment of the debt, which further increased the amount owed, in accordance with the terms of parking.

9. The claimant claims the amounts owed, plus court and legal fees, and interest, pursuant to section 69 of the county courts act 1984 on the amount found to be due to the claimant at such rate, and for such period, as the court thinks fit.

schedule of information
outstanding amount : £333
summary of terms: Phone and pay £1 per hour £3 for 24 hours. Payments must be made within 10 minutes of arrival - To deter abuse of this car park. these terms apply 24 hours a day. Disabled badge holders not exempt from these conditions. If you do not pay within 10 minutes of arrival, or if you park longer than the period paid for, you agree to pay our charge. Additional costs will be incurred if payment is not received within 28 days.

My defence

Claim Number *********

Civil Enforcement Ltd v ******

Statement of Defence

I am ********* , defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim.

1/ This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an un-denied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

2/ This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:

(a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction, no letters or correspondence has been received apart from the Claim notification itself and the Schedule of Information, which followed.

(b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The initial County Court Claim Form
only contains the claimants name, address and amounts of money identified as debt and damages, with a notice that detailed particulars will be provided within 14 days.

(c) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information:

It does not detail
1. Proof or confirmation of the driver at the time of the alleged incident.
2. Proof of the vehicle being there at the alleged time.
3. The vehicle type and colour
4. Why the charge arose

(d) The claim is signed by 'Mr Michael Schwartz' who is and was under investigation by the SRA and has practising certificate conditions currently imposed. It is believed he can act as a solicitor only in employment, the arrangements for which must be pre-approved by the SRA and I have no evidence that this is the case, nor that he is an employee of the Claimant.


3/ Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

(a) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.

(b) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.

(c) It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (as applicable at the time).

(d) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.

(e) It is believed the terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the UTCCRs (as applicable at the time).

(f) 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.

(g) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.


4/ POFA 2012 breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

(a) No keeper liability can apply, due to this Claimant's PCN not complying with Schedule 4. The driver has not been evidenced and a registered keeper cannot otherwise be held liable. In cases where a keeper is deemed liable, where compliant documentation was served, the sum pursued cannot exceed the original parking charge, only if adequately drawn to the attention of drivers on any signage.

(b) Where a contravention is detected remotely (such as by cameras) the landholder must write to the registered keeper within 14 days. I refer you to the alleged incident date and the PCN issue date.


5/ BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

(a) The signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.

(b) The sum pursued exceeds £100.

(c) There is/was no compliant landowner contract.

(d) The charge is not based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss (a condition at the time).


6/ No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

It is believed Civil Enforcement do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.


7/ No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

This Claimant files serial claims regarding sites where they have lost the contract, known as revenge claims and it believed this is one such case. This is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue.


8/ The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.


9/ The charge is an unenforceable penalty, neither based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss nor any commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.


10/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. If Mr Schwartz is an employee then the Defendant suggests he is remunerated and the claim/draft claim are templates, so it is not credible that £50.00 legal costs were incurred. Nor it is believed that a fee was paid to any debt recovery agency so the Claimant is put to strict proof it has. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.


11/ In the Beavis case the £85 was deemed the 'quid pro quo' for the licence granted to park free for two hours and there was no quantified loss. Not so in this case where it is believed the location is one with a small tariff after a grace period.


12/ If the court believes there was a contract (which is denied, due to unclear signage) this is just the sort of 'simple financial contract' identified at the Supreme Court as one with an easily quantifiable loss (the tariff) where any sum pursued for breach must still relate to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.


The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

(a) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the Claim Form issued on xxxxxxx.

The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

The Defendant invites the Court to use its discretion to make such an order, if not striking out this claim.

I believe that the facts in my defence are true

Regards

bod1467

3.c) and 3.e) seem to be the same thing?

I'm not sure about the "flow" of the defence, whether it tells the "story" in a clear and concise way. Wait for other responses.

pappa_golf

ok simples ,


2. By way of background, the claimant uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition ("ANRP") cameras at entrance and exit of the car park, which identify time of arrival and departure of vehicles from the car park.

3. There are many clear and visible signs in the car park advising drivers of the terms and conditions of use. Drivers are permitted to park in the car park in accordance with the terms displayed on the signage, and these signs constitute an offer by the claimant to enter into a contract with drivers.


the parking signage will say "x" hour parking


the camera system does not monitor your parking , only time on site


CEL are a BPA member and the BPA code of conduct states


13 Grace periods
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.
13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.


so ,, ?


where is or was the grace period both on entry and exit?

andyjok

So I need to add in grace periods ?

pappa_golf

are they relevant to the amount of time you were on the site , as compared to the time you were physically parked


or to put it another way , although the cameras said you were onsite for "x" mins , where you actually parked for that period?


this is what you are being taken to court for , guilty or not?

andyjok

I was on site for 17 mins total.

pappa_golf

did you pay for ANY parking at all


(the site is marked as a paying carpark)

andyjok

No I didn't pay any at all.