County Court Letter

Mirani

My Mum has recieved a county court letter due to a PCM parking fine. Initially we appealed the fined using one of the drafts (I cannot find the draft) but it was rejected stating that there was no pre-estimation of loss but one of contractual agreement. We decided to ignore it since we thought it was harassment but later a small claims was received and we sent another draft (which we have a copy for) to buy time to figure out what to do. that seemed to be ignored and now a county court letter has been sent.

Some points:
They increased the fine from £60 initial fee (the full amount was £100) to £160 without providing a reason
They have a picture with the Car and signage but the font on the signage is very small.
they are relying on an "operative" regarding the time of parking.

If there are any other details I may be able to provide please let me know

Umkomaas

Read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2, which tells you how to deal with small claims court cases.

Lots of work to do.

beamerguy

Who is the solicitor bringing this claim ????

Mirani

Gladstones.

I read the post and I'm trying to put together a defence but it's my first time so still a bit slow, I'm not sure as to what are the important points to include and what are unimportant. I will try to post a defence on here soon. I still need to figure out the essentials and what information is essential to gather.

However the picture they have is of my Mum parked directly beneath the sign. And though we did not say (as far as I am aware) of who the driver was the car had only one person registered at the time.

so far I have as a defence (using a previous defence)

I am [mothers name], Defendant in this matter and I assert that the Claimant has no cause for action for the following reasons:

1.It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

2. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXXX XXX when it was parked at High Point Vilage. The PCN stated the contravention as “Parking having exceeded time limit.”

3. It is denied that:
a. A contract was formed
b. There was an agreement to pay a parking charge.
c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site in a "clear and concise" manner as stated, as the font was very small for a driver to notice and the sign had a brevity of sufficient information. I still need to read the sign the image is not clear
d. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums. They have Increased the sum from a discounted sum of £60 and a complete sum of £100 to a conjured sum of £160

basically I am using SIP/Gladstones draft Defence as a template as I am unsure as to what groundwork I need to be doing.

Mirani

If I want to get more information regarding if this operative was a human or were the pictures timed automated do I directly contact the PCM compnay or the solicitors? Because inbetween the stated times my mother did leave and come back to the parking spot (but we have no way to prove that).
Or do grace periods apply?

Lamilad

If I want to get more information regarding if this operative was a human or were the pictures timed automated

From the picture you have described above it sounds like it was taken by a car park attendant. ANPR cameras usually just photograph the vehicle entering and leaving the car park.

Your defence needs to focus on the poor signage, small, illegible text incapable of forming a contract. As well as no locus standi, inadequate particulars, CoP failures, distinguished from Beavis case.

Mirani

Okay will try to look more thoroughly from the Beavis case to extract useful points, thank you

Mirani

Could someone please check the defence below.

I was also wondering where I could find the picture from the beavis case which i need to include of the sign and on the direction questionnaire if I could ask the judge to come to a judgement without our presence

I am XXXXX, Defendant in this matter and I assert that the Claimant has no cause for action for the following reasons:

1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

2. The claim is directed at the driver of the vehicle with registration XXXXX and purports a parking charge dated 20/04/2017 occurring at High Point Village

3. It is denied that any "parking charges or indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in it's entirety.

4. The claim form itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the claimant’s case. The particulars of claim fail to meet CPR16.4 and PD16 7.3-7.5 and merely provide a date, and an "amount" consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.
a) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
b) The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
c) The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
d) The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence.
It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information.

5. The claim also states "parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable" which gives no indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of ‘trespass’ or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'.

6. It is pointed out that the Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. 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.

7. It is also pointed out that for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 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''.

8. The alleged debt as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes.
Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation

9. The Defendant denies that they 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.

10. The charge is also inflated from the original £100 to £160 without any apparent reason, a sign of extortionate behaviour.

11. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established

12.. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. The signs were insufficient in terms of their distribution, wording and lighting hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
a) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) site/entrance signage - breach of the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
b) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
c) 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.
d) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.
e) the inadequate font size of the sign to make it sufficiently legible.

13. The Defendant respectfully suggests 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.

14. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.

Coupon-mad

I was also wondering where I could find the picture from the beavis case which i need to include of the sign

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

and on the direction questionnaire if I could ask the judge to come to a judgement without our presence

Seriously NOT recommended. Turn up and win, we almost never see a defended hearing lost.

In your defence I can't see anything telling the Judge what the defence actually is, or what the parking event is even about. You also say (as your Mum) that you are the keeper, and that the charge is aimed at 'the driver' but then you say nothing about the POFA or 'no keeper liability' if your Mother wasn't driving. Or was she, and has that been admitted?

I've just looked at your first post again, what 'Court letter' do you mean, here:

later a small claims was received and we sent another draft (which we have a copy for) to buy time to figure out what to do. that seemed to be ignored and now a county court letter has been sent.

... and are you saying your Mum has already replied to the claim and defended it? What was the date of the claim form?

What 'court letter' are you describing now? What exactly was received and sent, when?

Mirani

You also say (as your Mum) that you are the keeper, and that the charge is aimed at 'the driver' but then you say nothing about the POFA or 'no keeper liability' if your Mother wasn't driving. Or was she, and has that been admitted?

There was no other driver at the time, she was the only one registered, so I thought I couldn't include POFA in my defence

... and are you saying your Mum has already replied to the claim and defended it? What was the date of the claim form?

no we have yet to send the defence, the claim was dated 26/july/2017

In your defence I can't see anything telling the Judge what the defence actually is, or what the parking event is even about.

Okay I will try to make this more clear

Lamilad

There was no other driver at the time, she was the only one registered,!

Do you mean your mum is the only person on the insurance for this vehicle? The person "registered" (if you mean registered keeper) is a different thing.

Even if only 1 person is insured lots of other people could potentially have been the driver through the doc (driving other cars) extension on their on insurance policies, provided their had access to the vehicle and the owners permission.