We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Civil Enforcement Ltd - Defence - GP surgery
Deano1961
Posts: 4 Newbie
Dear all
We recently successfully defended a Claim by CEL. This was a long-running and very time-consuming/stressful saga involving Wright Hassall Solicitors at one stage culminating in CEL issuing proceedings for recovery of £328.43.
We must pay homage to this and other websites for the invaluable guidance provided a lot of which was used in our defence. As a result we include our defence precedent as it may be useful for others in the same predicament.
Some of the main factors in this defence which may or may be relevant to others were:
a) It arose from parking in a GP surgery car park. There was no free period as such. When you entered the car park you had to key in your registration number at a terminal in the Surgery which authorised a 'permit'. Any failure to obtain a permit resulted in a £100 penalty charge.
b) The signage entering the car park was poor. You could only glean the conditions from actually entering the car pack and reading the internal signs. By that time however you had been captured by ANPR camera. Ergo there was no informed consent.
c) The touch screen terminals were poor. When you typed in your registration number it did not repeat what you had typed or ask you to confirm if what you had entered was correct. Therefore errors would be unknown until you received the letter from CEL. We argued that was a fundamental error in the system. In fact the GP surgery more recently upgraded the software to provide feedback from the DVLA data of the car entered for you to confirm.
d) Our vehicle was a company vehicle. CEL issued proceedings against the company and failed to request the driver details. In our defence we argued this was fatal to their claim.
e) The claimant provided only times from entering the car park and leaving with no visual evidence and could not refute any allegation that there could have been further in and out visits to the car park between those times. No was there evidence that the vehicle was parked.
Here it is......
IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE (CCBC)
CLAIM NUMBER: XXXXXXXX
The Defendant denies any liability to the Claimant for all of the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to the Claimant’s case:
I. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case
II. The Defendant is not liable as they are the keeper, and the keeper has no liability
III. The Claimant has no capacity to form a contract with the Defendant
IV. The Claimant provided no service to the Defendant
V. The Claimant did not offer a genuine contract and the amount claimed was intended as a penalty.
VI. Even if the Claimant did have the capacity to form a contract, it would be void under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations
VII. Even if a debt had existed, it would be due to the Landowner, not the Claimant
VIII. The signage does not offer a contract with the Defendant
The Defendant is not liable as they are the keeper, and the keeper has no liability
1/ The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not been complied with. The registered keeper is a private limited company, not an individual and, axiomatically, cannot be proven as the driver. This distinguishes this case from the Beavis case. As such, the keeper can only be held liable if the claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements of PoFA. The Claimant's PCN did not comply with Schedule 4 and the Claimant has at no point sought to identify the driver therefore the registered keeper cannot otherwise be held liable. We invite the Court to strike out the case on this point alone.
The case differs from ParkingEye v Beavis
2/ This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the ‘Beavis’ case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.
3/ This is a penalty and is not saved by the Beavis case. This car park is free and there is no provision for the purchasing of a ticket or any other means for paying for parking. There was no damage nor obstruction caused, so there can be no loss arising from this event. The charge is an unenforceable penalty, neither based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss nor any commercial justification. We put the claimant to strict proof for any loss.
4/ The Defendant further asserts that the Claimant has ignored the Government’s clear intention as expressed in the Department for Transport Guidance on the Recovery of Parking Charges:
“Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver”.
5/ The charge is an unenforceable penalty, neither based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss nor any commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim. The signage states “If you park without obtaining a valid permit, you agree to pay £100”. There is thus no free period, and parking for one minute without a permit would incur a £100 charge. This clearly has no basis on estimates of loss or any commercial justification.
6/ In the Beavis case the £85 was deemed the 'quid pro quo' for the licence granted to park free for two hours and there was no quantified loss. Not so in this case where where there is no grace or free period.
7/ If the Court believes there was a contract (which is denied) this is just the sort of 'simple financial contract' identified at the Supreme Court as one with an easily quantifiable loss (the tariff) where any sum pursued for breach must still relate to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol
8/ The Claimant is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The initial County Court Claim Form contains only the claimants name, address and amounts of money identified as debt and damages, with a notice that detailed particulars will be provided within 14 days.
The Schedule of information is devoid of detailed information comprising only:
1. - The defendant, who is the registered keeper (a private limited company) and not identified as the driver at the alleged time.
2. - The VRN.
3. - The dates and times of the alleged incident.
4. - Car park name.
5. - Outstanding amount and break down of costs.
It does not detail:
1. - Proof or confirmation of the driver at the time of the alleged incident.
2. - Proof of the vehicle being there at the alleged time.
3. - How long or proof that the car was actually parked, only the arrival and departure time of the large car park totaling 28 minutes and 9 seconds.
4. - The vehicle type and colour
5. - Why the charge arose
Inadequate signage incapable of binding the driver
9/ It is believed that the signage present was unclear, sporadic and not visible at the time. Terms are only imported into a contract if they are clear and prominent that the party ‘must’ have known about and agreed to. Therefore, no contract was formed.
10/ The entrance to the car park shows only a sign marked ‘Permit Holders Only’. It shows no terms and conditions, nor the basis upon permits are obtained and merely directs visitors to the signage inside the car park. There is no reference to charges on the entry sign, to the use of ANPR technology nor how any data collected will be used. The driver therefore only becomes aware of the permit conditions by entering the car park. At that point in time the ANPR system will have recorded the vehicle details. Therefore drivers are unaware that ANPR tracking will engage on entering the car park and are unaware of the conditions that apply. There is clearly no opportunity to view the terms and conditions before driving into the car park, there is no valid offer made prior to entering and no valid consent.
11/ The signage at the entry to the car park is not prominent and not illuminated. The Claimant’s schedule states that the infringement occurred between 18.10 and 18.38 on the 29th December 2015. The signage outside the car park is not illuminated and easily missed at night time.
12/ 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. Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.
The Claimant has no standing to make contracts with drivers
13/ This distinguishes this case from the Beavis case. The proper claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Civil Enforcement Ltd. The Claimant does not own the car park and nor does he have any other interest in it and therefore lacks capacity to offer parking. Nor did the claimant provide any service to the defendant.
14/ The claimant has no BPA-compliant landowner contract containing wording specifically assigning them any rights to form contracts with drivers in their own name, nor to pursue these charges in their own name in the Courts. We put Civil Enforcement Ltd to strict proof of the above in the form of their unredacted contract.
15/ The contract must be with the landowner – not a managing agent nor retailer nor any facility on site which is not the landholder – and the contract must comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP. Such a contract must show that this contravention can result in this charge at this car park and that CEL can form contracts with drivers in their own right and have the assignment of rights to enforce the matter in court in their name.
No contractual liability under Consumer Contract Regulations
16/ The signage at this location 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.
17/ 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. 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.
18/ Due to these significant breaches of the Regulations, it is submitted that the Defendant cannot be held contractually liable, according to the wording of the Regulations at 13 (1) “Before the consumer is bound by a distance contract, the trader must …”.
19/ The Claimant may choose to argue that the above Regulations do not apply to contracts concluded by means of automatic vending machines or automated commercial premises. However, we would state that the conditions are such that they do apply in this instance. Before entering into contract, the motorist must have seen (or should have seen) the signage, and decided to accept the terms by performance, namely the act of parking. At that point, his entry time may have been recorded by ANPR, a fact which the motorist may or may not have been aware of. He has not engaged in any automated process with any machines or equipment, has not put coins into a slot, and his decision to accept or decline the contract was based on what was written on the sign. The fact that ANPR may be used to detect breaches does not affect the nature of the contract. In this case, as we have already argued, the signage at the entry of the car park was totally inadequate in that it did not state any terms and conditions associated with entering the premises and the motorist had to trigger the ANPR in order to see what the terms were.
Breaches of BPA Code of Practice
20/ This distinguishes case from the Beavis case. The signage at the entrance to the car does not set out any terms save to state that it is ‘Permit Holders Only’ which is a breach of the BPA CoP.
21/ The BPA Code of Practice requires parking companies to allow a minimum of 10 minutes ‘grace’. The Claimant has not applied this. Given that the Claimant is alleging a stay of only 28 minutes, when allowance for grace periods on entry and exit is allowed for, the Claimant’s amount of £328.43 is both extravagant and unconscionable and a further differentiation from the Beavis case.
22/ The lack of any reference to ANPR data use on the entrance sign means the Claimant has not complied with ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice. The ICO code of practice states: ‘Given the significant amounts of information that ANPR systems are able to collect, it is important that individuals are informed that their personal data is being processed. The best way to do this is through signage explaining that ANPR recording is taking place’. The BPA code of practice states: ‘Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for’. The signs outside the car park are entirely silent on ANPR and those inside the car park do not state what the data will be used for.
23/ In a further breach of the BPA CoP, the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
There has been no breach of contract
24/ The Claimant has not made the case that there was an actual breach. The Schedule of Information provides only arrival times into and out of the car park. There is no photographic evidence of this. Furthermore, there is no evidence of the vehicle having ever been parked in the car park at any time. The signage inside the car park states “If you park without obtaining a valid permit…”. Entry and exit times provide no evidence of how long a vehicle was parked or even if the vehicle was parked at all. In addition, the vehicle may have made more than one visit to the car park within the entry and exit times. The Claimant provides no evidence to refute this.
25/ The touch screen system for obtaining permits in the GP surgery was inadequate. At the time of the incident, users were required to input their VCN after which the system did not respond with confirmation of the digits entered nor confirmation of the vehicle that the VCN related to. Thus any user keying in incorrect digits had no knowledge that they had made an error nor were they confronted with details which they then could acknowledge and confirm. Therefore a driver could in good faith have entered their details but would not be aware of any error until a PCN was subsequently received. It is notable that the touch screen system has since been upgraded at the GP Surgery to provide confirmation of the VCN, the vehicle type and colour which the user then has to physically confirm.
The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.
In the alternative, the Defendant is willing for the matter to be decided by POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) which will decide the dispute and limits any further costs to this claimant to £27, with no legal costs. This is the bespoke ADR for BPA members, is available at any time (not just the first 28 days) and has been used to settle private parking court claims on multiple occasions even after proceedings have commenced. POPLA has not been undertaken in this case nor was it mentioned in the recent sparse communications from this Claimant.
The Defendant invites the Court to use its discretion to make such an order, if not striking out this claim.
We recently successfully defended a Claim by CEL. This was a long-running and very time-consuming/stressful saga involving Wright Hassall Solicitors at one stage culminating in CEL issuing proceedings for recovery of £328.43.
We must pay homage to this and other websites for the invaluable guidance provided a lot of which was used in our defence. As a result we include our defence precedent as it may be useful for others in the same predicament.
Some of the main factors in this defence which may or may be relevant to others were:
a) It arose from parking in a GP surgery car park. There was no free period as such. When you entered the car park you had to key in your registration number at a terminal in the Surgery which authorised a 'permit'. Any failure to obtain a permit resulted in a £100 penalty charge.
b) The signage entering the car park was poor. You could only glean the conditions from actually entering the car pack and reading the internal signs. By that time however you had been captured by ANPR camera. Ergo there was no informed consent.
c) The touch screen terminals were poor. When you typed in your registration number it did not repeat what you had typed or ask you to confirm if what you had entered was correct. Therefore errors would be unknown until you received the letter from CEL. We argued that was a fundamental error in the system. In fact the GP surgery more recently upgraded the software to provide feedback from the DVLA data of the car entered for you to confirm.
d) Our vehicle was a company vehicle. CEL issued proceedings against the company and failed to request the driver details. In our defence we argued this was fatal to their claim.
e) The claimant provided only times from entering the car park and leaving with no visual evidence and could not refute any allegation that there could have been further in and out visits to the car park between those times. No was there evidence that the vehicle was parked.
Here it is......
IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE (CCBC)
CLAIM NUMBER: XXXXXXXX
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD V XXXXXXXX
STATEMENT OF DEFENCE
The Defendant denies any liability to the Claimant for all of the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to the Claimant’s case:
I. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case
II. The Defendant is not liable as they are the keeper, and the keeper has no liability
III. The Claimant has no capacity to form a contract with the Defendant
IV. The Claimant provided no service to the Defendant
V. The Claimant did not offer a genuine contract and the amount claimed was intended as a penalty.
VI. Even if the Claimant did have the capacity to form a contract, it would be void under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations
VII. Even if a debt had existed, it would be due to the Landowner, not the Claimant
VIII. The signage does not offer a contract with the Defendant
The Defendant is not liable as they are the keeper, and the keeper has no liability
1/ The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not been complied with. The registered keeper is a private limited company, not an individual and, axiomatically, cannot be proven as the driver. This distinguishes this case from the Beavis case. As such, the keeper can only be held liable if the claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements of PoFA. The Claimant's PCN did not comply with Schedule 4 and the Claimant has at no point sought to identify the driver therefore the registered keeper cannot otherwise be held liable. We invite the Court to strike out the case on this point alone.
The case differs from ParkingEye v Beavis
2/ This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the ‘Beavis’ case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.
3/ This is a penalty and is not saved by the Beavis case. This car park is free and there is no provision for the purchasing of a ticket or any other means for paying for parking. There was no damage nor obstruction caused, so there can be no loss arising from this event. The charge is an unenforceable penalty, neither based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss nor any commercial justification. We put the claimant to strict proof for any loss.
4/ The Defendant further asserts that the Claimant has ignored the Government’s clear intention as expressed in the Department for Transport Guidance on the Recovery of Parking Charges:
“Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver”.
5/ The charge is an unenforceable penalty, neither based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss nor any commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim. The signage states “If you park without obtaining a valid permit, you agree to pay £100”. There is thus no free period, and parking for one minute without a permit would incur a £100 charge. This clearly has no basis on estimates of loss or any commercial justification.
6/ In the Beavis case the £85 was deemed the 'quid pro quo' for the licence granted to park free for two hours and there was no quantified loss. Not so in this case where where there is no grace or free period.
7/ If the Court believes there was a contract (which is denied) this is just the sort of 'simple financial contract' identified at the Supreme Court as one with an easily quantifiable loss (the tariff) where any sum pursued for breach must still relate to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol
8/ The Claimant is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The initial County Court Claim Form contains only the claimants name, address and amounts of money identified as debt and damages, with a notice that detailed particulars will be provided within 14 days.
The Schedule of information is devoid of detailed information comprising only:
1. - The defendant, who is the registered keeper (a private limited company) and not identified as the driver at the alleged time.
2. - The VRN.
3. - The dates and times of the alleged incident.
4. - Car park name.
5. - Outstanding amount and break down of costs.
It does not detail:
1. - Proof or confirmation of the driver at the time of the alleged incident.
2. - Proof of the vehicle being there at the alleged time.
3. - How long or proof that the car was actually parked, only the arrival and departure time of the large car park totaling 28 minutes and 9 seconds.
4. - The vehicle type and colour
5. - Why the charge arose
Inadequate signage incapable of binding the driver
9/ It is believed that the signage present was unclear, sporadic and not visible at the time. Terms are only imported into a contract if they are clear and prominent that the party ‘must’ have known about and agreed to. Therefore, no contract was formed.
10/ The entrance to the car park shows only a sign marked ‘Permit Holders Only’. It shows no terms and conditions, nor the basis upon permits are obtained and merely directs visitors to the signage inside the car park. There is no reference to charges on the entry sign, to the use of ANPR technology nor how any data collected will be used. The driver therefore only becomes aware of the permit conditions by entering the car park. At that point in time the ANPR system will have recorded the vehicle details. Therefore drivers are unaware that ANPR tracking will engage on entering the car park and are unaware of the conditions that apply. There is clearly no opportunity to view the terms and conditions before driving into the car park, there is no valid offer made prior to entering and no valid consent.
11/ The signage at the entry to the car park is not prominent and not illuminated. The Claimant’s schedule states that the infringement occurred between 18.10 and 18.38 on the 29th December 2015. The signage outside the car park is not illuminated and easily missed at night time.
12/ 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. Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.
The Claimant has no standing to make contracts with drivers
13/ This distinguishes this case from the Beavis case. The proper claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Civil Enforcement Ltd. The Claimant does not own the car park and nor does he have any other interest in it and therefore lacks capacity to offer parking. Nor did the claimant provide any service to the defendant.
14/ The claimant has no BPA-compliant landowner contract containing wording specifically assigning them any rights to form contracts with drivers in their own name, nor to pursue these charges in their own name in the Courts. We put Civil Enforcement Ltd to strict proof of the above in the form of their unredacted contract.
15/ The contract must be with the landowner – not a managing agent nor retailer nor any facility on site which is not the landholder – and the contract must comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP. Such a contract must show that this contravention can result in this charge at this car park and that CEL can form contracts with drivers in their own right and have the assignment of rights to enforce the matter in court in their name.
No contractual liability under Consumer Contract Regulations
16/ The signage at this location 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.
17/ 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. 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.
18/ Due to these significant breaches of the Regulations, it is submitted that the Defendant cannot be held contractually liable, according to the wording of the Regulations at 13 (1) “Before the consumer is bound by a distance contract, the trader must …”.
19/ The Claimant may choose to argue that the above Regulations do not apply to contracts concluded by means of automatic vending machines or automated commercial premises. However, we would state that the conditions are such that they do apply in this instance. Before entering into contract, the motorist must have seen (or should have seen) the signage, and decided to accept the terms by performance, namely the act of parking. At that point, his entry time may have been recorded by ANPR, a fact which the motorist may or may not have been aware of. He has not engaged in any automated process with any machines or equipment, has not put coins into a slot, and his decision to accept or decline the contract was based on what was written on the sign. The fact that ANPR may be used to detect breaches does not affect the nature of the contract. In this case, as we have already argued, the signage at the entry of the car park was totally inadequate in that it did not state any terms and conditions associated with entering the premises and the motorist had to trigger the ANPR in order to see what the terms were.
Breaches of BPA Code of Practice
20/ This distinguishes case from the Beavis case. The signage at the entrance to the car does not set out any terms save to state that it is ‘Permit Holders Only’ which is a breach of the BPA CoP.
21/ The BPA Code of Practice requires parking companies to allow a minimum of 10 minutes ‘grace’. The Claimant has not applied this. Given that the Claimant is alleging a stay of only 28 minutes, when allowance for grace periods on entry and exit is allowed for, the Claimant’s amount of £328.43 is both extravagant and unconscionable and a further differentiation from the Beavis case.
22/ The lack of any reference to ANPR data use on the entrance sign means the Claimant has not complied with ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice. The ICO code of practice states: ‘Given the significant amounts of information that ANPR systems are able to collect, it is important that individuals are informed that their personal data is being processed. The best way to do this is through signage explaining that ANPR recording is taking place’. The BPA code of practice states: ‘Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for’. The signs outside the car park are entirely silent on ANPR and those inside the car park do not state what the data will be used for.
23/ In a further breach of the BPA CoP, the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
There has been no breach of contract
24/ The Claimant has not made the case that there was an actual breach. The Schedule of Information provides only arrival times into and out of the car park. There is no photographic evidence of this. Furthermore, there is no evidence of the vehicle having ever been parked in the car park at any time. The signage inside the car park states “If you park without obtaining a valid permit…”. Entry and exit times provide no evidence of how long a vehicle was parked or even if the vehicle was parked at all. In addition, the vehicle may have made more than one visit to the car park within the entry and exit times. The Claimant provides no evidence to refute this.
25/ The touch screen system for obtaining permits in the GP surgery was inadequate. At the time of the incident, users were required to input their VCN after which the system did not respond with confirmation of the digits entered nor confirmation of the vehicle that the VCN related to. Thus any user keying in incorrect digits had no knowledge that they had made an error nor were they confronted with details which they then could acknowledge and confirm. Therefore a driver could in good faith have entered their details but would not be aware of any error until a PCN was subsequently received. It is notable that the touch screen system has since been upgraded at the GP Surgery to provide confirmation of the VCN, the vehicle type and colour which the user then has to physically confirm.
The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.
In the alternative, the Defendant is willing for the matter to be decided by POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) which will decide the dispute and limits any further costs to this claimant to £27, with no legal costs. This is the bespoke ADR for BPA members, is available at any time (not just the first 28 days) and has been used to settle private parking court claims on multiple occasions even after proceedings have commenced. POPLA has not been undertaken in this case nor was it mentioned in the recent sparse communications from this Claimant.
The Defendant invites the Court to use its discretion to make such an order, if not striking out this claim.
0
Comments
-
Well done and thanks for posting.
Do you have any information about the case itself. The claimants arguments, the judge's comments, and the case number will all be of immense help, as is knowing what the judge actually found on. Was this a single point win or did the judge agree find on several different points?
The Parking-Prankster would probably be interested in the result as well.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.
All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
why not follow this up with a FOI to the surgery, plus a complaint that they are in breach of the NHS parking principles.From the Plain Language Commission:
"The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"0 -
We would love to see a court report - or did they give up as per usual, when they saw that defence? Nice one.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thanks for feedback, but we'd like to hear a bit more as to whether this actually got into a courtroom, or did CEL perform just like any bully and slink away when they realised it was they who would be sporting the bloodied nose. Perhaps a Doctors' surgery was the right place for them to be!Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
I realised that I omitted to mentioned that they threw in the towel by withdrawing a week before the hearing.0
-
They capitulated by withdrawing from the proceedings before the hearing. Our managing director (because they decided to issue against a Company, idiotically) was desperate to have his day in court with them so he was disappointed!!
With hindsight we would have included a counterclaim btw0 -
If you have a case against which to (counter) claim (breach of the Data Protection Act principles is one that is starting to be explored currently), then you have 6 years available for your MD to have his day in court with them.With hindsight we would have included a counterclaim btw
I suspect if you issued a claim right now (£250 - £750 are figures that have been awarded) they still wouldn't turn up in court - which would mean a likely default judgment against them and a court order for them to pay you the claim plus your costs.
If he's baying for blood, feed him that bit of meat! It's time these outfits met their match and put through what they wantonly subject the weak, the vulnerable, the sick and dying in our society to.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
If you have a case against which to (counter) claim (breach of the Data Protection Act principles is one that is starting to be explored currently), then you have 6 years available for your MD to have his day in court with them.
I suspect if you issued a claim right now (£250 - £750 are figures that have been awarded) they still wouldn't turn up in court - which would mean a likely default judgment against them and a court order for them to pay you the claim plus your costs.
If he's baying for blood, feed him that bit of meat! It's time these outfits met their match and put through what they wantonly subject the weak, the vulnerable, the sick and dying in our society to.
+1
CEL are well overdue a spanking, it's the courts version
of Rentokil0 -
Congrats OP and thanks for posting!
I had a similar no ticket issue at a hospital and complained to them. They cancelled the PCN within 24hours of lodging my appeal.
I used the NHS patient, visitor and staff car parking principles Oct 2015 which is the latest one as at June 2017. I inserted the link here if anyone needs to complain about parking in an NHS establishment. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles
The GP surgery should've cancelled yours if they'd adhered to the principles.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards