County Court Letter

Mirani

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

I added point 3 and 4 is that sufficient?

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.

Oh I did not know that, she was the only person insured and she is the registered keeper but we never mentioned that she was the driver at the time though that's what the claim states. In that case shall I include the POFA schedule


I am ________, 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 _______ and purports a parking charge dated 20/04/2017 occurring at High Point Village.
3. It is believed that the claim is regarding a charge issued by the company Parking Control Management (PCM) Ltd, on the basis of ‘Parking having exceeded the time limit’. Though the particulars of the claim fail to specify, it is believed that the claimant assumes:
a. That a contract was formed by the defendant
b. There was an agreement to pay a sum or parking charge
c. The terms and conditions were clearly established and presented via signs
d. That additional charges could be added without established reasons or notice to the defendant
e. That they met the conditions set out by the British parking association (BPA) code of practice as is their obligation to do so.

4. The defendant denies that
a. A contract was formed
b. That an agreement was made to pay any parking charges
c. The claimant met their obligations of properly displaying signs as per BPA code of practice
d. The claimant clearly displayed the terms and conditions
e. Any agreement was made for additional charges

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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'.

8. 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.

9. 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 Gladstone's' 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''.

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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.

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

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

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

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

Coupon-mad

How long was she over the time limit?

Was it pay & display?

Why was she late back, is she disabled or frail or suffers from any mobility issue that could be argued?

Mirani

The permitted time was 20minutes and she was 14minutes over the time limit according to them. My mum did leave the parking spot and came back to the same parking spot within that time, but unfortunately we can't prove that. The picture given doesn't have a time stamp they rely on an operative.



There was no pay and display, only a short stay availability.

no she is not disabled or frail. I do not think any mobility issues could be argued.

Coupon-mad

My mum did leave the parking spot and came back to the same parking spot within that time, but unfortunately we can't prove that.

She doesn't need to prove it in small claim, just convince the Judge that she is an honest witness who did move the car in between, so in fact there was no contravention of the 20 minutes allowed for each separate parking event.

She only has to tip the 'balance of probabilities' in her favour (not prove it) and I think this demonstrates why she needs to face the hearing in person, not try to duck it and rely on paperwork which doesn't communicate her position as clearly or compellingly as oral statements given in person.

Mirani

She would have to admit to being the driver in which case, so as an additional point can I say (or would it be better to say this in person):

The defendant also puts forth that an operative cannot be a valid judge of time pared as the vehicle could have moved from the parking spot in question and returned between the time the parking attendant first noticed the car and then subsequently "returned" (stated in their reply to an appeal made). This means that the attendant can not be safely relied on as a moderator of the terms of the contractor.

could I also complain about the shortness of the duration given?

Coupon-mad

I would defend this as driver, if I were your Mum. No point hiding who was driving, because PCM do serve Notice to Keeper letters and are sufficiently compliant with the POFA in their wording, IMHO.

Writing a defence as driver is more straightforward and means she needn't worry about any legalese or tying herself up in knots at the hearing - just say it as it was, and remind the judge that this means there was no contravention of terms. Assuming the sign doesn't say 'no return within...'

Don't say the vehicle ''could have moved'' in that case, just say what happened. It was moved and then returned and each stop was for no more than xx minutes.

nosferatu1001

indeed. And state that the claimant has not averred that checks were made to ensure the vehicle had not left and returned, for example noting valve positions on tyres...

Mirani

We went to check the sign again today and it did say no return within 1 hour

nosferatu1001

Yes, but that can only bind a driver. No one else.

Mirani

I'm not sure what you mean, she was the driver