PCM invoice at High Point Village

whaqqer

I am now about to submit my defence statement regarding this matter and as always, would be grateful for the forum Members input. Thanks in advance



Statement of Defence

Claim Number XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
Vs
Parking Control Management UK Ltd


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

2) Rebuttal of Claim
It is denied that any 'debt' exists that could lead to a claim in law. In the alternative, if a debt is considered by the court to exist, then I am not liable because:

a) No contract was formed. There was no offer, and no consideration flowed between any parties and this location is an unmarked (or very badly marked) road, not a car park. The actual area of tarmac in which the alleged !!!8216;parking violation!!!8217; occurred had no markings to indicate that any rules applied. This appears to be just the sort of predatory ticketing practice the UK Government has pledged to end.

b) No agreement was reached, no meeting of minds with a driver agreeing to pay a parking charge.

c) No Terms and Conditions were sufficiently or prominently displayed around the site. No signs were lit and there were no road markings at the entrance to advise that restrictions applied, which have subsequently been installed after the alleged incident occurred. It is impossible for the driver to agree to pay a charge due to the signage before entering the site as this does not mention any details regarding the so called !!!8216;Parking Charge!!!8217; and all signage once on site being cleverly written in a miniscule font in order to make it difficult for drivers to read and understand any of the terms. The height of the signage indicates that the signage is deliberately placed awkwardly to entrap motorists. If the signage is unable to be read standing a few feet away, it would have been impossible to read the signage from a vehicle on site let alone agree to any terms and conditions in breach of the IPC Code of Practice Part E, Schedule 1.
It is impossible for anyone to enter into a contract without seeing, reading and understanding all the terms and according to the signage on site, No Grace Period applies which indicates that anyone stopping to !!!8220;agree!!!8221; a contract is immediately in default, this is a breach of Section 15.1 of the IPC code of practice which indicates drivers should be given sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so an informed decision can be made.

d) No agreement was made to pay unspecified additional sums, which are unsupported in law.

e) The claimant company failed to comply with the terms of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, so cannot lawfully hold a registered keeper liable.

f) The claimant company failed to comply with their obligations within the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice, of which they are a member.

g) No suitable grace period was allowed and the charge is disproportionate and has no complex legitimate interest allowing recovery of any more than damages (in this instance none), using the test established in ParkingEye v Beavis.

h) The Claimant company has no standing to charge for trespass, and made no offer, so has no grounds to allege any contract existed, or could exist, nor can a third party recover any nominal sum under the tort of trespass on land they do not own.

i) In the case of Jopson v Homeguard Services Limited, Judge Harris stated the following:

The purported prohibition was upon parking, and it is possible to draw a real and sensible distinction between pausing for a few moments or minutes to enable passengers to alight or for awkward or heavy items to be unloaded, and parking in the sense of leaving a car for some significant duration of time. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary has the following: !!!8216;To leave a vehicle in a carpark or other reserved space!!!8217; and !!!8216;To leave in a suitable place until required!!!8217;. The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars.

Therefore no !!!8216;parking!!!8217; violation occurred.

3) I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.

4) 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.

My Defence
My defence will rely principally upon the following points:

5) In the pre-court stage the Claimant!!!8217;s solicitor refused to provide me with the necessary information I requested on both 24th January 2018 and 13th March 2018 in order to defend myself against the alleged debt. The request was made for:

a) an explanation of the cause of action
b) whether they were pursuing me as driver or keeper
c) whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
d) what the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
e) Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract
f) Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details
g) Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1 !!!8220;establishing yourself as the creditor!!!8221;
h) a plan showing where any signs were displayed
i) details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
j) Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
k) Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form

None of the above requests were clearly answered or provided, and have still not been to date.

6) The signs erected on site were inadequate/illegible and not conforming to the IPC Code of Practice which gives clear instructions as to the placing, visibility and clarity of any signs (that should be) and are used. They are therefore incapable for the purpose of forming the basis of a contract. Further it is trite law that a term that is forbidding cannot also constitute an offer. Should the claimant rely upon the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case'), I wish to point out that there is a test of good faith (reference Paragraph 205):
!!!8220;The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.!!!8221;
It is therefore denied that any contract was formed or was capable of being formed and that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.

7) There has been a breach of the IPC Code of Practise relating to entrapment: it will be shown that the means to prevent the alleged !!!8220;parking violation!!!8221; existed both before, during and after the alleged contravention. It will also be demonstrated that the opportunity to instruct the driver of the parking !!!8220;restrictions!!!8221; in place was available and that it is in doubt as to whether a reasonable !!!8220;grace period!!!8221; was allowed as stated in IPC Code of Practice 15.1.

8) 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. Notwithstanding that the Claimant claims no right to pursue the Defendant as the registered keeper under the Act, the Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if it cannot identify the driver. This distinguishes the case from Elliott vs Loake (1982) in which there was irrefutable evidence of the drivers identity.

9) The claimed value of £175-83 (plus court & legal representative costs) is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors in their claim.
This claim merely states: !!!8220;parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable!!!8221; which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. For example, whether this charge is founded upon an !!!8216;allegation of trespass!!!8217; 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'.
It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court. The lack of diligence in this claim demonstrates that at best a !!!8216;copy and paste' is the closest a human, legally trained or not, came to the information transmitted from claimant to the Money Claims Online system. There are no real costs and POFA prevents claims exceeding the sum on the original parking notice.
The attention of the court is also drawn to para. 4(5) Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which sets out that the maximum amount recoverable from the registered keeper, where the keeper liability provisions have been properly invoked (which is expressly denied in this case) is that amount specified in the Notice to Keeper (whether issued in accordance with paras 8(2)c; 8(2)d, 9(2)c or 9(2)d of the Act).

10) The Claimant!!!8217;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.
I believe the term for such conduct is !!!8216;robo-claims!!!8217; 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.
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.

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.

Summary
12) 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.

13) 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.


Signed ______________________
Dated

KeithP

No need to file your Defence early.

When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described here:

1) print your Defence
2) sign it
3) scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
4) send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
5) just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.

Coupon-mad

Statement of Defence

Where are people getting that heading, every day?

It's:

DEFENCE

XXXXXXX
Vs
Parking Control Management UK Ltd

What, are you suing them then?! Wrong way round...

whaqqer

Thanks KeithP, I'm going to review my defence a few times before submitting but thanks again for the useful tips on how to file.


Thanks Coupon-Mad, doesn't bode well for me when I can't get the first two lines correct does it?

whaqqer

Updated defence below, again I'd be grateful for anyone's advice on any errors I may have made. Thanks everyone





DEFENCE

Claim Number XXXXXXX

Parking Control Management UK Ltd
Vs
XXXXXXX


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

2) Rebuttal of Claim
It is denied that any 'debt' exists that could lead to a claim in law. In the alternative, if a debt is considered by the court to exist, then I am not liable because:

a) No contract was formed. There was no offer, and no consideration flowed between any parties and this location is an unmarked (or very badly marked) road, not a car park. The actual area of tarmac in which the alleged !!!8216;parking violation!!!8217; occurred had no markings to indicate that any rules applied. This appears to be just the sort of predatory ticketing practice the UK Government has pledged to end.

b) No agreement was reached, no meeting of minds with a driver agreeing to pay a parking charge.

c) No Terms and Conditions were sufficiently or prominently displayed around the site. No signs were lit and there were no road markings at the entrance to advise that restrictions applied, which have subsequently been installed after the alleged incident occurred. It is impossible for the driver to agree to pay a charge due to the signage before entering the site as this does not mention any details regarding the so called !!!8216;Parking Charge!!!8217; and all signage once on site being cleverly written in a miniscule font in order to make it difficult for drivers to read and understand any of the terms. The height of the signage indicates that the signage is deliberately placed awkwardly to entrap motorists. If the signage is unable to be read standing a few feet away, it would have been impossible to read the signage from a vehicle on site let alone agree to any terms and conditions in breach of the IPC Code of Practice Part E, Schedule 1.
It is impossible for anyone to enter into a contract without seeing, reading and understanding all the terms and according to the signage on site, No Grace Period applies which indicates that anyone stopping to !!!8220;agree!!!8221; a contract is immediately in default, this is a breach of Section 15.1 of the IPC code of practice which indicates drivers should be given sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so an informed decision can be made.

d) No agreement was made to pay unspecified additional sums, which are unsupported in law.

e) The claimant company failed to comply with the terms of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, so cannot lawfully hold a registered keeper liable.

f) The claimant company failed to comply with their obligations within the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice, of which they are a member.

g) No suitable grace period was allowed and the charge is disproportionate and has no complex legitimate interest allowing recovery of any more than damages (in this instance none), using the test established in ParkingEye v Beavis.

h) The Claimant company has no standing to charge for trespass, and made no offer, so has no grounds to allege any contract existed, or could exist, nor can a third party recover any nominal sum under the tort of trespass on land they do not own.

i) In the case of Jopson v Homeguard Services Limited, Judge Harris stated the following:

The purported prohibition was upon parking, and it is possible to draw a real and sensible distinction between pausing for a few moments or minutes to enable passengers to alight or for awkward or heavy items to be unloaded, and parking in the sense of leaving a car for some significant duration of time. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary has the following: !!!8216;To leave a vehicle in a carpark or other reserved space!!!8217; and !!!8216;To leave in a suitable place until required!!!8217;. The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars.

Therefore no !!!8216;parking!!!8217; violation occurred.

3) I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.

4) 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.

My Defence
My defence will rely principally upon the following points:

5) In the pre-court stage the Claimant!!!8217;s solicitor refused to provide me with the necessary information I requested on both 24th January 2018 and 13th March 2018 in order to defend myself against the alleged debt. The request was made for:

a) an explanation of the cause of action
b) whether they were pursuing me as driver or keeper
c) whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
d) what the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
e) Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract
f) Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details
g) Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1 !!!8220;establishing yourself as the creditor!!!8221;
h) a plan showing where any signs were displayed
i) details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
j) Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
k) Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form

None of the above requests were clearly answered or provided, and have still not been to date.

6) The signs erected on site were inadequate/illegible and not conforming to the IPC Code of Practice which gives clear instructions as to the placing, visibility and clarity of any signs (that should be) and are used. They are therefore incapable for the purpose of forming the basis of a contract. Further it is trite law that a term that is forbidding cannot also constitute an offer. Should the claimant rely upon the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case'), I wish to point out that there is a test of good faith (reference Paragraph 205):
!!!8220;The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.!!!8221;
It is therefore denied that any contract was formed or was capable of being formed and that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.

7) There has been a breach of the IPC Code of Practise relating to entrapment: it will be shown that the means to prevent the alleged !!!8220;parking violation!!!8221; existed both before, during and after the alleged contravention. It will also be demonstrated that the opportunity to instruct the driver of the parking !!!8220;restrictions!!!8221; in place was available and that it is in doubt as to whether a reasonable !!!8220;grace period!!!8221; was allowed as stated in IPC Code of Practice 15.1.

8) 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. Notwithstanding that the Claimant claims no right to pursue the Defendant as the registered keeper under the Act, the Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if it cannot identify the driver. This distinguishes the case from Elliott vs Loake (1982) in which there was irrefutable evidence of the drivers identity.

9) The claimed value of £175-83 (plus court & legal representative costs) is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors in their claim.
This claim merely states: !!!8220;parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable!!!8221; which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. For example, whether this charge is founded upon an !!!8216;allegation of trespass!!!8217; 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'.
It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court. The lack of diligence in this claim demonstrates that at best a !!!8216;copy and paste' is the closest a human, legally trained or not, came to the information transmitted from claimant to the Money Claims Online system. There are no real costs and POFA prevents claims exceeding the sum on the original parking notice.
The attention of the court is also drawn to para. 4(5) Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which sets out that the maximum amount recoverable from the registered keeper, where the keeper liability provisions have been properly invoked (which is expressly denied in this case) is that amount specified in the Notice to Keeper (whether issued in accordance with paras 8(2)c; 8(2)d, 9(2)c or 9(2)d of the Act).

10) The Claimant!!!8217;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.
I believe the term for such conduct is !!!8216;robo-claims!!!8217; 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.
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.

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.

Summary
12) 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.

13) 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.


Signed ______________________
Dated

Coupon-mad

written in a miniscule font

minuscule

Also, was it daytime/light? In which case remove the bit about the signs being unlit.

See this thread for more things to say about PCM in a defence, maybe instead of #8 which I would not bother with (no need to hide behind being the keeper, better to be the driver in court, if you were, in a case v PCM being predatory oiks):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5705136

See the latest posts there.

whaqqer

Thanks Coupon-mad as always for taking the time to read my defence and the advice.


I will read through the thread you've suggested tonight and update my defence accordingly and repost.

whaqqer

I have read through a number of other defence threads this weekend and have adjusted mine accordingly.


I have two questions which I'd be grateful if anyone on the board could offer advice on:


1.If driver identity is to be revealed in court, should I remove point 2e as irrelevant?
2.Should I remove 13 as has been recommended to others as it offers nothing to my case apart from painting PCM in a bad light?



I will need to submit this tomorrow so thanks as always in advance





DEFENCE

Claim Number XXXXXXX

Parking Control Management UK Ltd
Vs
XXXXXXX


Introduction
1. It is admitted that the defendant, XXXXXX XXXXX, residing at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time in question.

2. Rebuttal of Claim
It is denied that any 'debt' exists that could lead to a claim in law. In the alternative, if a debt is considered by the court to exist, then I am not liable because:

a) No contract was formed. There was no offer, and no consideration flowed between any parties and this location is an unmarked (or very badly marked) road, not a car park. The actual area of tarmac in which the alleged !!!8216;parking violation!!!8217; occurred had no road markings to indicate that any rules applied. This appears to be just the sort of predatory ticketing practice the UK Government has pledged to end.

b) No agreement was reached, no meeting of minds with a driver agreeing to pay a parking charge.

c) No Terms and Conditions were sufficiently or prominently displayed around the site. The signage was inadequate, displaying differing information and that there were no road markings at the entrance to advise that restrictions applied, which have subsequently been installed after the alleged incident occurred. It is impossible for the driver to agree to pay a charge due to the signage before entering the site as this does not mention any details regarding the so called !!!8216;Parking Charge!!!8217; and all signage once on site being written in a minuscule font in order to make it difficult for drivers to read and understand any of the terms. The height of the signage indicates that the signage is deliberately placed awkwardly to entrap motorists. If the signage is unable to be read standing a few feet away, it would have been impossible to read the signage from a vehicle on site let alone agree to any terms and conditions in breach of the IPC Code of Practice Part E, Schedule 1.
It is impossible for anyone to enter into a contract without seeing, reading and understanding all the terms and according to one set of the signage on site, No Grace Period applies which indicates that anyone stopping to !!!8220;agree!!!8221; a contract is immediately in default, this is a breach of Section 15.1 of the IPC code of practice which indicates drivers should be given sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so an informed decision can be made.

d) No agreement was made to pay unspecified additional sums, which are unsupported in law.

e) The claimant company failed to comply with the terms of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, so cannot lawfully hold a registered keeper liable.

f) The claimant company failed to comply with their obligations within the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice, of which they are a member.

g) No suitable grace period was allowed and the charge is disproportionate and has no complex legitimate interest allowing recovery of any more than damages (in this instance none), using the test established in ParkingEye v Beavis.

h) The Claimant company has no standing to charge for trespass, and made no offer, so has no grounds to allege any contract existed, or could exist, nor can a third party recover any nominal sum under the tort of trespass on land they do not own.

i) In the case of Jopson v Homeguard Services Limited, Judge Harris stated the following:

The purported prohibition was upon parking, and it is possible to draw a real and sensible distinction between pausing for a few moments or minutes to enable passengers to alight or for awkward or heavy items to be unloaded, and parking in the sense of leaving a car for some significant duration of time. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary has the following: !!!8216;To leave a vehicle in a carpark or other reserved space!!!8217; and !!!8216;To leave in a suitable place until required!!!8217;. The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars.

Therefore no !!!8216;parking!!!8217; event occurred.

3. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.

4. 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.

My Defence
My defence will rely principally upon the following points:

5. In the pre-court stage the Claimant!!!8217;s solicitor refused to provide me with the necessary information I requested on both 24th January 2018 and 13th March 2018 in order to defend myself against the alleged debt. The request was made for:

a) an explanation of the cause of action
b) whether they were pursuing me as driver or keeper
c) whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
d) what the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
e) Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract
f) Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details
g) Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1 !!!8220;establishing yourself as the creditor!!!8221;
h) a plan showing where any signs were displayed
i) details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
j) Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
k) Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form

None of the above requests were clearly answered or provided by the claimant, and have still not been to date. A copy of the signage requested in section I was received but did not relate to this site at the time of the alleged incident.

6. Parking Control Management (Uk) Limited are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.
6.1. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
6.2. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle !!!8216;parking!!!8217; at the location in question
6.3 The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge

7. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, woefully inadequate. They are therefore incapable for the purpose of forming the basis of a contract. Further it is trite law that a term that is forbidding cannot also constitute an offer. Should the claimant rely upon the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case'), insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout. I wish to point out that there is a test of good faith (reference Paragraph 205):
!!!8220;The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.!!!8221;
It is therefore denied that any contract was formed or was capable of being formed and that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.
7.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation; The signage erected on site display conflicting information, with some highlighting !!!8216;no grace period!!!8217; and other failing to mention this fact, and a copy of the signage sent to the defendant as part of the requests on 24th January 2018 and 13th March 2018 are not of the signage at the site at that time but a different signage.
7.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee!!!8217;s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
7.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
8. There has been a breach of the IPC Code of Practise relating to entrapment: it will be shown that the means to prevent the alleged !!!8220;parking violation!!!8221; existed both before, during and after the alleged contravention. It will also be demonstrated that the opportunity to instruct the driver of the parking !!!8220;restrictions!!!8221; in place was available and that it is in doubt as to whether a reasonable !!!8220;grace period!!!8221; was allowed as stated in IPC Code of Practice 15.1.

9. The Defendant would also cite Parking Control Management (Uk) Ltd v Christopher Bull (21/4/2016) in which the court ruled against the claimant in a similar circumstance where the Defendant was accused of parking in a restricted area.

10. The Defendant would also like to make the court aware of the widely publicised findings of the BBC!!!8217;s Watchdog programme in Series 35 Episode 4 in which Parking Control Management (Uk) Ltd admitted that they make things up during appeals, this provides further evidence of PCM!!!8217;s lack of professionalism and fictitious claims. The programme also found evidence of numerous scam/non-existent appeal procedures being employed.


11. The claimed value of £175-83 (plus court & legal representative costs) is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors in their claim.
This claim merely states: !!!8220;parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable!!!8221; which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. For example, whether this charge is founded upon an !!!8216;allegation of trespass!!!8217; 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'.
It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court. There are no real costs and POFA prevents claims exceeding the sum on the original parking notice so the increase in costs from £100 to £160 appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
11.1. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.
11.2. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
11.2.1. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

12. The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges with no evidence of how these extra charges have been calculated.
No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.
12.1. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
12.2. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
12.3. Notwithstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
12.4. The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal representative!!!8217;s costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

13. The Claimant!!!8217;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.
I believe the term for such conduct is !!!8216;robo-claims!!!8217; 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.
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.

Summary
14. 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).

15. 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.

16. The Defendant requests 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''.

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.


Statement of Truth
I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.


Signed ______________________
Dated

Coupon-mad

7.2. has the wrong (old) name for the IPC, but you have it right further up.

You have 'Code of Practise' in one place, which should be 'Practice'.

1.If driver identity is to be revealed in court, should I remove point 2e as irrelevant?
2.Should I remove 13 as has been recommended to others as it offers nothing to my case apart from painting PCM in a bad light?

Yes and yes.

whaqqer

Thanks Coupon-Mad for taking the time to read through it again.


Changes made, and defence submitted. Time to start on the witness statement