Help Required for CCC Defence

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 followind defence. Please can you cast your eyes over it. 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.