County Court Claim - Clamping in Operation Sign at the Car Park

adamtbray

Hi all,

I've been issued with a county court claim by Car Park Management Services (CPMS) Ltd, and was wondering if I could get the landowner to "call off the dogs", as there is a sign that the landowner (not CPMS) has put at the car park entrance saying "Clamping in operation". I was thinking I could threaten them that I will contact trading standards unless they get CPMS to cancel the court claim, or could this potentially backfire if it still continues to court?

Also, the DfT document "Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012: Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges" states that;

"Consumer protection legislation provides protections to consumers in a number of ways, including protections from misleading information and unfair contract terms"

Would this apply even if the sign is separate from the sign issued by CPMS?

Thanks
Adam

pappa_golf

the car park owner (clamping signs) is not the car parking company , non of CPMS signs say clamping

he can even place this sign up if he wants to

however the illigality is only when he shoots (or clamps) you

Fruitcake

I would have thought that if the parking scammers are taking you to court, a sign over which they have no control is irrelevant.

You should always complain to the landowner in any case.

Coupon-mad

adamtbray wrote: »

I've been issued with a county court claim by Car Park Management Services (CPMS) Ltd...

Make sure you read the links in the NEWBIES thread under 'Small Claim?' and that you acknowledge service, to buy yourself another 2 weeks to get your defence right. Please show us your draft defence before submitting it And do read other ones on here and on pepipoo.com forum as well.

Defended cases from the forums with points based on advice here, have a very high success rate, including cases discontinued by the claimants.

adamtbray

Great. Thanks for the responses both. I will get the defence up as soon as it's ready. Just one point, on the "particulars of claim" part of the Money Claim online form, this has an incorrect date for one of the tickets (12/10/18 instead of 12/10/16). Would this invalidate this particular claim?

Also, the form is simply signed "Cpms", does this not have to be signed by a specific person such as a director? The amount claimed also does not match up with the ticket amounts (4 * £100); are the PPC allowed to claim interest if this is not stated on the signs in the car park? (the amount claimed is £460 + £35 court fee (no solicitor fees)).

Cpms appear to be one of the most unprofessional of the PPCs.. up until recently their email address was @btinternet... lol! They may be making at least some strides to improve that image it seems.

Many thanks,
Adam

Coupon-mad

Just one point, on the "particulars of claim" part of the Money Claim online form, this has an incorrect date for one of the tickets (12/10/18 instead of 12/10/16). Would this invalidate this particular claim?

Also, the form is simply signed "Cpms", does this not have to be signed by a specific person such as a director? The amount claimed also does not match up with the ticket amounts (4 * £100); are the PPC allowed to claim interest if this is not stated on the signs in the car park? (the amount claimed is £460 + £35 court fee (no solicitor fees)).

Good points! All of the above are correct and worth stating except the interest because the County Courts Act (I think) is the legislation that allows interest to be claimed on any alleged 'debt'.

adamtbray

Great. Thanks and much appreciated. I'll get the defence up soon.

Also, what do people think of their signs? They are pretty small and unlit at night. The company number is also missing a 0 at the start.. would this potentially have an implication for the PoFA compliance? The IPC code of conduct only refers to company registration numbers with regards to entrance signs.

//s24.postimg.org/4x7oqsb11/IMAG0259_1.jpeg

Coupon-mad

Small and unlit at night and on a wall, which requires larger font to be considered 'prominent'.

http://s24.postimg.org/4x7oqsb11/IMAG0259_1.jpg

Parking is only offered to customers, so were the occupants of the car customers?

The sign is gibberish really:

- it is not clear what is meant by 'customers' (of whom?)
- it reads as if every car driver pays a 'parking charge' of £100, at first reading
- it then prohibits parking and leaving the site but how will they evidence that?
- it is pale and unlit, as you say...on a wall, illegible, etc.

And if the only contravention is leaving the site, they must have someone lying in wait watching drivers, in which case why does that employee simply stop the behaviour they are contracted to prevent (the true legitimate interest of their client) and stop people walking away and warn them of a charge? As per VCS v Ibbotson:

http://nebula.wsimg.com/e3da92cb966c72de63ec1f98605c2954?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

The toothbrush case!

adamtbray

Hi All,

Here is the defence that I have written. What are your thoughts?

1. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum Claimed or any amount at all for the following reasons:

2. The Claim form is signed by an entity cited as ‘cpms’, bearing little similarity to the Claimant’s full name (Car Park Management Services (CPMS) Ltd) and there appear to be many companies with the same initials of cpms. No individual person has signed the claim form, with their position or named the correct claimant company. This is contrary to CPR part 22 (3.4) and it is averred the claim has not been correctly served or issued and it is requested that the court considers striking the claim on this ground alone.

3. The Claimant’s case relates to alleged ‘none payment of four parking charge notices’ and states one such charge (C112850) as being issued on the 12/10/18, almost two years in the future, which is clearly a nonsense as no liability can possibly have been yet incurred for such a dated charge. Additionally, the Claimant has failed to identify the vehicle registration number appertaining to these alleged parking charge notices, for example, if they relate to one or more cars. The claimant has not specified how the charges were incurred, what any breach of terms for any of the charges and has not clearly specified if proceedings have been issued against me as the registered keeper or the purported driver of an unspecified car in these proceedings.

4. The Claimant has not provided any breakdown or calculation of the claim amount (excluding the court filing fee) and this is simply stated as £460.00, but to a reasonable person, this equates to £115 or £153.33 based on either four charges / or three parking charges, if the charge allegedly issued in 2018 is discounted. The amount appertaining to the charges is therefore contrary to the Claimant’s maximum permitted under their ATA code of practice, with the claim clearly is an attempt to recover more than permitted. Furthermore, the Claimant states the “costs pursuant to the parking eye v beavis case in supreme court”, yet as the Supreme Court did not make any ruling on costs each party covering their own, then no costs are recoverable by the Claimant on this case. It is however unreasonable for me to expect that my costs are not allowed in the case, especially due to the insufficient claim details, should the case be decided in my favour at any subsequent hearing, and I reserve the right to request any such costs the court may permit.

5. The Claimant states that the charges have been issued ‘pursuant to the protection of freedoms act 2012’ (POFA). It is submitted that the Claimant has not complied with the requirements of the Act, and no correct notices have been served in relation to the charges, clearly no such notice can be served for a charge not yet incurred in 2018. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that they have complied in full with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom’s Act 2012, particularly in compliance with either Sections 7 /8 or Section 9 of the Act.

6. The Claimant is additionally put to strict proof that they complied with CPR and Pre-action Protocol by serving a compliant letter before claim prior to issuing proceedings. I have no recollection of receipt of such a letter.

7. The Claimant alleges that the charges were incurred at “Stocktons furniture store, Manchester” and is put to strict proof that:

A) they have the requisite authority from the landowner to issue and pursue the charges, in compliance with their ATA Code of Practice by means of a full un-redacted contract demonstrating authority or chain of authority.

That any signs at the location:
- Offer any contract to the motorist in relation to the charges applicable
- Meet the requirements of their ATA Code of Practice
- Has the relevant planning/advertising consent
- Comply with statute legislation, including POFA, The Consumer Rights Act 2015 and The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013

8. The signage at the site fails to create any contractual liability due to the failure to comply with the provisions of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. The purported contract created by the signage is a ‘distance contract’ as defined in section 5 of the Regulations, and is therefore subject to the mandatory requirements set out in section 13, relating to the statutory information which must be provided by the trader.

The Regulations state, at 13(1)(a), that the information listed in Schedule 2 must be given or made available to the consumer in a clear and comprehensible manner. This is not the case at this site as the signs are arguably deliberately small and difficult to spot by motorists parking at this car park. The Claimant’s notice fails to comply with various clauses of Schedule 2, as follows:

2(k) – Requirement to provide a complaint handling policy. This is not described on the signage.
2(o) – Requirement to provide information about the right to cancel, or to state that there is no right to cancel. This is not stated on the signage.
2(r) – Requirement to provide information about Codes of Conduct. This does not appear on the signage.
2(x) – Requirement for access to an Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanism. Not indicated by the signage.]

9. In view of the above, and the Claimant’s wholly inadequate particulars of claim, it is not possible for me to formulate any specific or meaningful defence at this stage and consequently, should the claim not be struck out ab initio, then as an unrepresented litigant in person, I reserve the right to add, amend or reply to any additional documentation or compliant particulars of claim which may be consequently served by the Claimant.



In terms of if this goes to a court hearing, would the parking company have to provide evidence before the hearing that they have complied with the PoFA (2012)? I wouldn't want to end up in court if they haven't provided such evidence (and therefore can't hold me liable as the keeper)

catfunt

On a quick look..

6. "I had no recollection I never received etc.

"I had no recollection" suggests that you may have received it but could not remember...

Others will no doubt be along with more detailed suggestions on other points.

Coupon-mad

You said you had a claim by the first week of January so I sincerely hope you are showing us your defence that you filed within 14/28 days of that claim (depending on if you acknowledged it first)? If not, you are too late and have a CCJ by default.