UK Car Park Management ignoring invoice rejection

[Deleted User]

I should add that the directors and secretary of the IAS (a trading name of United Trade & Industry Ltd) are also directors at the firm of solicitors routinely instructed to enforce the tickets - Gladstones. So I would have concerns as to how much independence there is...

If there is to be consideration of the issues by an independent party request that the ADR group or CEDR are used. Whilst that will not be accepted, it does mean that there has been a legitimate offer to resolve matters outside of formal proceedings.

c1223

For background, the car was a privately leased car from VWFS. Registered keeper and owner are VWFS.

Back in December 2016 I received an invoice from UK Car Park Management claiming they had issued a PCN to the vehicle for "No Parking on Access Roads/Roadways". The PCN was issued to "a vehicle have been named as driving because it was parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a parking charge".

Quite simply, the driver arrived at work and had to move one of the work vans out of the space so that they could put the car there. They left the car in front of the van space (which can be accessed from front and back) to move the van. The car is not parked on any lines and there are no road markings. The photos seem to be taken by someone who works at the car dealership opposite. The timestamps on the photos are 30 seconds apart. Obviously this is a completely ridiculous ticket, as there is no where else for them to put the car in the 2 minutes it took them to do the rearrange.



The car was parked where the red line is. There is no double yellow line there. It's in front of the red and silver car in the street view.





My first rejection of the invoice at the beginning of January 2017 was as follows:



A few weeks later I get a reply from UK CPM basically ignoring anything to do with the PoFA and suggesting I submit a case to the IAS. I leave it as is, because they have failed to comply with PoFA and there is no need for me to communicate with them any further.

At the beginning of February 2017 I get another "Formal Demand" from UK CPM requesting payment. This is filed but I make no rebuttal.

April 2017 - I receive a letter from Debt Recovery Plus Ltd requesting payment. I initially ignore it, until a second one comes about 2 weeks later. UK CPM get a letter about that as follows:



UK CPM reply to my letter saying that a "decision has already been made and the decision to refuse [my] appeal remains"

DRP send a further letter which actually arrived the same day as UK CPM's reply offering a reduced settlement offer to avoid court action. I ignore this.

A month later, June 2017, is when I receive my first letter from Gladstones Solicitors requesting that I pay DRP immediately. Once again, I ignore this for the time being as I have made my position very clear to UK CPM.

At the end of July 2017 I receive a Letter Before Claim. (Weirdly, whether important or not, the amount that UK CPM request changes each time a different person chases me for it. It was £100 from UK CPM, £149 from DRP and £160 from Gladstones). Gladstones get sent the following:



I don't receive a reply from the letter that I sent Gladstones on 5th August 2017 until 29th December 2017...! Among other things, they say:

"Our client has evidence of a parking charge notice (notice to driver) being affixed to the vehicle windscreen at the time it was issued" - they do not. I have a copy of their photos, and also the driver said there was no NtK on the car.

Apparently UK CPM sent a NtK "in accordance with Schedule 4, paragraph 8 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the Act') giving [me] an opportunity to pay or nominate a driver"

I didn't bother replying to that letter, because quite frankly, it's obvious that my argument that UK CPM didn't follow the PoFA in relation to hired/leased cars was going nowhere.

Today, I received a county court claim in which Gladstones are claiming for £160 plus interest. I've done some reading and as far as I'm aware, I need to acknowledge this online, submit no defence to start with, and that gives me 28 days to put together a defence.

This is where I need some help. I've read a lot of defences online on the various forums. Is a defence of not complying with the PoFA a strong enough one? I know in the previous thread, that there was mention of the signs being forbidding in nature, but quite frankly, if I'm going to be the one defending this, I don't want to get out of my depth!

Also, from experience, what are the chances that this would actually make it to a court hearing? Surely I've got a clear cut case? If anything, some confirmation that my defence is correct (re: PoFA documents not being sent to me) would be a huge relief. I've suddenly got slightly nervous due to the official money claim papers turning up!

Let me know if you need any more info etc...

Coupon-mad

I received a county court claim in which Gladstones are claiming for £160 plus interest.

So have loads of people this past week, and we have lots of threads for you to crib from their defences.

I've read a lot of defences online on the various forums. Is a defence of not complying with the PoFA a strong enough one?

Yes, should be with a lease/hire vehicle because they won't have sent a Notice to Hirer with the required paperwork, but I would say this defence is stronger:

Long story short is that the driver had to temporarily (3 minutes max) leave their car "illegally" parked (although not blocking any access or otherwise) in order to move a work van out of the space in which they would then place the car.

That leads you to argue:

- no contract agreed
- the charge is an unrecoverable penalty - can be fully distinguished from the Beavis case
- no grace period allowed
- not actually parked (people sometimes need to switch cars out of bays!)
- not on a yellow line, roadway, paved, hatched or landscaped area
- predatory ticketing (did a person sneak up with a PCN while you did the switch?)
- the signs are prohibitive. You DO need to get your head around the fact the signs is not offering a parking licence to cars that they say were 'not parked in a bay' therefore not offering anything of value = elements of a contract are absent.

c1223

Hi Coupon-mad. I'm forming my defence statement. In regard to "no contract agreed", I've found this site: http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/04/pcm-uk-signage-does-not-create-contract.html

Is my argument essentially:

The sign is forbidding in nature, providing no offer at all, therefore no contract exists.

Presumably referencing a case such as this one: B4GF26K6 will be helpful?

Thanks!

Coupon-mad

Could be but your main point is the vehicle wasn't parked and was just a swap over in/out of a bay.

c1223

Here's a draft of my defence statement. Any comments would be greatly appreciated.

IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM NUMBER: *******
BETWEEN
UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)
-and-
******** (Defendant)
_____________________
DEFENCE STATEMENT
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯


Preliminary

1. The Claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimant's contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimant's Trade Association, The Independent Parking Committee (IPC), Code of Practice B1.1.

2. The Particulars of Claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies the terms, nor how they were allegedly breached. Indeed the Particulars of Claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point:

"The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):

(1) those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example "Money owed £5000",
(2) those which are incoherent and make no sense,
those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant."

I believe this is true for the PoC they submitted? However I've never actually asked UK CPM for a copy of the contract because I've gone on the PoFA argument the whole way. Is that an issue?

3. The Claimant is known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts & Tribunals Service have identified over 1,000 similarly poorly produced claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is 'roboclaims' and as such is against the public interest.

Background

4. It is admitted that at the time of the alleged infringement the Defendant, ****, was the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration mark ****, which is subject of these proceedings. The vehicle was insured with three named drivers permitted to use it.

5. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by the statute in the Protect of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

6. The Defendant denies any amount is owed to the Claimant in relation to the incident described in the Particulars of Claim.

7. It is denied that on **** the Defendant's vehicle was parked at ****. The vehicle was stopped in order to remove another vehicle from the parking space in which it would then park. I refer to Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E where Charles Harris QC was clear on the concept of parking, as opposed to stopping. In this case, the driver was required to cope with a"vicissitude of short duration". Do I need to add a longer quote? Or more info re: the case?

No Contract

8. The Claimant's notices attempt to make a forbidding offer, which isn't an offer at all, therefore no contract exists.

9. Furthermore, no contract was formed due to the failure to provide adequate grace periods, the purpose of which is to provide sufficient time for an individual to read the terms of a contract and decide if they agree to them, as per The IPC Code of Practice B15.1:

"Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site."

Predatory Behaviour

10. The Defendant believes the Claimant has also breached the IPC Code of Practice B14.1 relating to "predatory tactics" by not allowing any grace period.

Failure to comply with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

11. The Claimant has failed to comply on several counts with the requirements of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

12. The vehicle in question, at the time of the alleged infringement was under hire. Therefore the Claimant's right to recover unpaid parking charges from the hirer of the vehicle is only applicable should the notice follow the requirements of POFA Schedule 4, 14(2)(a):

"the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a 'notice to hirer'), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;"

The documents in paragraph 13(2) are:

"(a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
(b) a copy of the hire agreement; and
(c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement."

As the Defendant did not receive these documents with the notice to keeper, the Claimant has failed to comply with the POFA, therefore the keeper is not liable for any charges.

Wholly Unreasonable and Vexatious Claim

13. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

14. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against motorists, alleging 'debts' for parking on free customer parking areas is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

15. The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors, Gladstones, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in the Court, and other Country Court hearing centres in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).

16. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

17. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

System

Suggest you take out the Preliminary. You say they haven't followed PD to allow you to understand the claim, and then show you understand the claim. So it detracts from your key points.

Again suggest you take out the bit about "Wholly Unreasonable and Vexatious Claim" as that is for the court to order after they have decided on the facts. Introducing 27.12 14(g) means it would also apply to you IF the judge believes you had no real defence.

You are left with paras 4 - 12 and you might want to refine some of those statements, especially POFA and the signs. For example you don't explain the "forbidding" element of the sign.

My two cents when I see a spray and pray defence.

Coupon-mad

Do I need to add a longer quote? Or more info re: the case?

No, that's OK but maybe add that:

On street, there is no contravention if a vehicle driver is merely:

- Opening or closing a gate or barrier to allow the
vehicle to enter or leave premises (and it is not
reasonably practical to stop elsewhere)
- Using the vehicle in connection with the
removal of any obstruction.

Therefore it would be disingenuous for a private parking firm to argue that they have more rights than a local authority engaged in parking management, or indeed that swapping one vehicle out of a bay to make way for the other, breaches any parking terms in the few minutes that activity took.

c1223

I've updated my defence as follows:

Background

1. It is admitted that at the time of the alleged infringement the Defendant, ****, was the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration mark ****, which is subject of these proceedings. The vehicle was insured with three named drivers permitted to use it.

2. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by the statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”).

3. The Defendant denies any amount is owed to the Claimant in relation to the incident described in the Particulars of Claim.

4. It is denied that on **** the Defendant’s vehicle was parked at ****. The vehicle was stopped in order to remove another vehicle from the parking space in which it would then park.

4.1. The Defendant refers to Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E where Charles Harris QC was clear on the concept of parking, as opposed to stopping. In this case, the driver was required to cope with a “vicissitude of short duration”.

4.2. Parking on street, there is no contravention if a vehicle’s driver is merely:

- “Opening or closing a gate or barrier to allow the vehicle to enter or leave premises, and it is not reasonably practical to stop elsewhere”

- “Using the vehicle in connection with the removal of any obstruction”

Therefore it would be disingenuous for a private parking firm to argue that they have more rights than a local authority engaged in parking management, or indeed that swapping one vehicle out of a bay to make way for the other breaches any parking terms in the few minutes that the activity took.


No Contract

5. The Claimant’s notices attempt to make a forbidding offer, which isn’t an offer at all, therefore no contract exists.

6. Furthermore, no contract was formed due to the failure to provide adequate grace periods, the purpose of which is to provide sufficient time for an individual to read the terms of a contract and decide if they agree to them, as per The IPC Code of Practice B15.1:

“Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.”

Predatory Behaviour

7. The Defendant believes the Claimant has also breached the IPC Code of Practice B14.1 relating to “predatory tactics” by not allowing any grace period.

Failure to comply with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

8. The Claimant has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle subject to compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of this Act.

9. The vehicle in question, at the time of the alleged infringement was under hire.

10. The Defendant admits that the vehicle-hire firm named the Defendant as the hirer.

11. The Claimant’s right to recover unpaid parking charges from the hirer of the vehicle is only applicable should the notice to the hirer be compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The notice must include certain documents as per the requirements of paragraph 14(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012:

“the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;”

The documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) are:

“(a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
(b) a copy of the hire agreement; and
(c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.”

Absent such documents served with the notice to hirer, the Claimant has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedom Act, therefore the keeper is not liable for any charges.

I would very much appreciate some help with regard to the "no contract"/signage defence. I can't seem to find any defences which actually go into detail about the sign not offering a contract.

For reference, this is the sign:

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74173393#Comment_74173393

It's about the fact the sign offers nothing of value, no parking licence outside of bays.