Excel PCN NTK - Now a Default CCJ

DoaM

Isn't that laid out in the particulars?

nosferatu1001

Exactly
The POC lay that out
You know whats contained in the rest of the form by now - youve seen one or two dozen?

abedegno

DoaM said:

Isn't that laid out in the particulars?

Nope - the particulars state:
"THE CLAIMANT SEEKS THE RECOVERY OF THE PARKING CHARGE NOTICE, CONTRACTUAL COSTS AND INTEREST."
But doesn't break down how much is PCN, how much is contractual costs and how much interest - working it backwards from the £185 total my guess is:
£100 PCN
£60 Contractual costs
£0 interest
£25.00 court fee
=£185.00

DoaM

The original claim is unlikely to have any more detail. So one of your arguments will be that the PoC did not have sufficient detail to allow a defendant to have any idea as to the nature of the Claimant's claim, so even if you'd had the opportunity to defend the claim, you'd have been on the back foot trying to narrow the issues in trying to resolve the dispute prior to court.

abedegno

DoaM said:

The original claim is unlikely to have any more detail. So one of your arguments will be that the PoC did not have sufficient detail to allow a defendant to have any idea as to the nature of the Claimant's claim, so even if you'd had the opportunity to defend the claim, you'd have been on the back foot trying to narrow the issues in trying to resolve the dispute prior to court.

Thanks - especially when there were no £60 contractual costs stated on the signage.
My other card is the car park in question appears to be unsure of its identity, with both signage for "Excel Parking Services Ltd" and "Vehicle Control Services Ltd)

KeithP

...with both signage for "Excel Parking Services Ltd" and "Vehicle Control Services Ltd.

This point has been argued in court, and won, many times.

Search the forum for examples.

nosferatu1001

The PoC must have more of a break down than that - ive never seen one that literally had only those words. 

abedegno

nosferatu1001 said:

The PoC must have more of a break down than that - ive never seen one that literally had only those words. 

The full particulars of the claim are: THE CLAIM IS FOR A BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR BREACHING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET ON PRIVATE LAND. THE DEFENDANT'S VEHICLE, XXXXXXX, WAS IDENTIFIED IN THE XXX XXX CAR PARK ON THE XX/XX/2017 IN BREACH OF THE ADVERTISED TERMS AND CONDITIONS; NAMELY PARKED WITHOUT DISPLAYING A VALID TICKET/PERMIT. AT ALL MATERIAL TIMES THE DEFENDANT WAS THE REGISTERED KEEPER AND/OR DRIVER. THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS UPON ENTERING PRIVATE LAND WERE CLEARLY DISPLAYED AT THE ENTRANCE AND IN PROMINENT LOCATIONS. THE SIGN WAS THE OFFER AND THE ACT OF ENTERING PRIVATE LAND WAS THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE OFFER HEREBY ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT BY CONDUCT. THE SIGNS SPECIFICALLY DETAIL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO COMPLY, NAMELY A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE WILL BE ISSUED, AND THE DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO SETTLE THE OUTSTANDING LIABILITY. THE CLAIMANT SEEKS THE RECOVERY OF THE PARKING CHARGE NOTICE, CONTRACTUAL COSTS AND INTEREST.
But no break down beyond the final line.  Claim forms I've seen normally have the wording "Claimant also claims £60.00 contractual costs pursuant to PCN terms and conditions" or similar.
I've found an example of a recent (July 2020) claim form from Excel Parking Services online, and it's the same in lacking detail.

nosferatu1001

Im guessing they're making them even more streamlined, so there is less chance of them messing up with their automation. 
BUt its easy to work out. £25 to file a claim, SO that leaves £160. You know theyre claimuing contractual costs, and if yo uknow the PCN was £100 - you should have some idea of the site by now? - you can find the signs. 

Coupon-mad

Hmmm, I would be including in the defence that the POC fail to state the sum of the parking charge!

Here is the beginning of a defence I wrote for someone last week that covers the above fact, and also covers the new appeal in Semark-Julien (I will be changing the template defence to suit):

DEFENCE

1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper  (and driver - if admitting to driving!)   of the vehicle stated in the Particulars of claim, at the material time. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all, for the reasons stated below.

2. The Particulars of Claim provide insufficient detail for the Defendant to ascertain the nature of the case nor even the sum of money. Although the cause of action appears to be breach of contract and this is a Money Claim, the Particulars:
a) fail to state in what capacity the Claimants are entitled to recover any sum. The Claimants have not stated whether they own or manage the site, or otherwise.
b) fail to state the sum of the parking charge or ‘outstanding liability’ or provide any breakdown whatsoever of the alleged ‘contractual costs’ and interest.
All are denied but it is impossible to make an informed decision based upon such sparse particulars.

3. The figure claimed is vague but clearly includes double recovery of costs and thus the claim is tainted by an unrecoverable penalty element.  Whatever the ‘contractual charge’ may be is unclear but according to ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (ref paras 98, 193 and 198) all such costs must be wholly within the rationale of the parking charge itself (which cannot exceed the £100 ceiling set by the Claimant’s Trade Body).    ParkingEye had stopped adding unrecoverable 'admin/recovery' costs by the time of the Beavis case, following the earlier persuasive authority from the High Court (endorsed by the Court of Appeal who upheld the decision), in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1338, [ref para 419 -  https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html ] which says:
''It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment. Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.''

4. Claims pleaded on this exaggerated basis have routinely been struck out ab initio in multiple County Court hearing centres and the direction of travel regarding the courts’ view of parking claims which include double recovery of ‘costs’ is established. Examples of such Judicial rulings are appended to this defence, from courts including (but not limited to) Southampton, Warwick, Skipton, Luton, Caernarfon, the Isle of Wight, Bradford, Willesden, Worthing, Bromley and Northampton.
See Appendix    (strike outs including the most recent, in Summer 2020).

 5. Whilst one single strike-out decision was recently appealed (Britannia v Semark-Julien) this bears all the hallmarks of a cherry-picked case where insufficient detail was known to the Judge, due to the unusual lack of defence and facts before the court, and that case is now proceeding to trial.  It is noteworthy that the appeal Judge made no finding about the matter of adding false ‘admin costs’ even though that was likely to have been what the appeal was seeking. Therefore, that judgment has no persuasive application to cases where sufficient facts are considered. Also, the application heard at the same time at Southampton Court (Britannia v Crosby 11.11.19) where full facts were available to strike out the claim and substantial defence and submissions were made, was not appealed. District Judge Grand’s decision in Crosby stands unopposed and his detailed rationale appears in the attached document, to assist the court.

6. This claim is wholly without merit. Accordingly, the Court is respectfully invited to strike out this claim pursuant to rule 3.4 (2)(a) and (b) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 and Practice Direction 3A, on the basis that:
i) the Particulars of Claim are incoherent, lack any cause of action or sum of money and make no sense (Practice Direction 3A, 1.4 (2) and CPR 16.5.
ii) the sum claimed in the tabular presentation of the claim is unduly inflated, thereby rendering the claim an abuse of the court process. This Claimant has seen the costs disallowed at most court hearing centres in 2019/20 and the Caernarfon strike-out Order (see Appendix) is testament to the fact that this Claimant is ‘forum-shopping’ and undoubtedly knows after repeated warnings that the substantial inflated ‘costs’ sum is unrecoverable.

7. Notwithstanding the above, the Defendant sets out her defence below as best she can in the circumstances. Save as admitted in this defence, she denies every allegation set out in the sparse Particulars of Claim and the Claimant is put to strict proof.

6.  Facts of the case etc...