POPLA HX Car Park Management Ltd PCN V O & C Car Parks Ltd Ticket

Castle

From a Goggle search: looks like there's no "Ltd":-
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:smq4z_4cJy0J:https://www.hx-pcn.com/oandc/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Coupon-mad

None of it explains any connection though, just another name when using the portal. Hence why the OP can put them to strict proof, because there appears to be no actual connection.

pappa_golf

perhaps O & C Car Parks Ltd can produce a vat recept for the ticket that was bought , I also wonder who is listed as paying rates on the land

pappa_golf

property management co , probably not the land owners either http://www.bizstats.co.uk/ltd/o-c-management-services-limited-04008642/

spaniel101

Thanks a million to all. I agree on the O&C thing, the link did work in August when I last looked, but seemingly has been removed (!) ...im hoping this might be good to go, otherwise I await your invaluable advice...
[FONT=&quot]I am >>>>>>>, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle >>>>>>>. I currently reside at >>>>>>>.

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

1. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. And as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The parking receipt purchased by the Defendant was with another legal entity altogether, namely O&C Car Parks Ltd (Company Number 03651387) as printed on the receipt, not HX Car Park Management Limited (Company Number 09313114). The wording of any terms of contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged terms of contract has never been provided to the Defendant, despite this having been requested. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their interest in the matter.

a) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'.

b) The Particulars of Claim are extremely sparse and divulged no sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea why the charge arose, what the alleged terms of contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Particulars of Claim do not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs from the Claimant.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]c) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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 ‘robo-claims’ 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.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]d) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

e) Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](i) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]A copy of any alleged terms of contract (e.g. copies of signage).

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](ii) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]How any terms of contract were concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time).

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](iii) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](iv) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](v) If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](vi) If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](vii) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.


[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states that the only sum a keeper of a vehicle can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and ‘relevant terms of contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not, as there was no clear, transparent information about maximum stay nor vehicle registration number) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the illegible signage, nor the notice to keeper, nor the illegible information clearly states a possible £237.04, for outstanding debt and damages.


[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 'legal representative’s (or even admin) costs' were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

4.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]a) 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. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]b) 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 (i.e. the tariff), identified as completely different from the complex 'free parking licence' arrangement in Beavis.

c) Where loss can be quantified, the 'complex' and 'completely different' Beavis decision is inapplicable, as was found in ParkingEye Ltd v Cargius, A0JD1405 at Wrexham County Court.


[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no terms of contract and the Claimant has no case. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]It is denied that the signs and printed receipt used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a keeper of a vehicle in any event. The signs and receipt were insufficient in terms of their distribution, wording and lighting hence incapable of binding, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
a) Site/entrance signage – There was no entrance signage whatsoever. The site signage is placed within tree branches which were not be visible in the height of Summer when the trees are in full bloom. The Defendant was only made aware of these signs when returning to the site in August to take pictures for evidence. The Defendant also notes a sign has not only been placed within the branches of a tree at great height, but it is also green and white thus not making it clear to read. The Defendant refers to the Terms and Conditions that are illegible as they are displayed in such small font. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Contrary to IPC Code of Practice, Part E, schedule 1 - Signage “Contrast and Illumination, signage - Black text on a white background or white text on a black background will provide a suitable contrast. You will need to ensure all signs are readable during the hours of enforcement as they form the legal basis of any charge”.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]b) The Defendant is aware that a new machine and signage has been installed in the car park at some time since August 2017. The original machine was not clear which area the machine related to. The Defendant believes this to be a deliberate tactic to mislead consumers as to which area the original machine related to, specifically as the new signage HX Car Park Management have installed since August 2017, now states that the new machine is “Pay and Display both sides”, along with an equally illegible new yellow and black signage next to it, which you are also still unable to read such small font, upon entering the car park. The Defendant also notes that the new machine still displays O&C Car Parks Ltd on receipts, not HX Car Park Management Ltd.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]c) There is no ‘Maximum Stay’ clearly visible wheresoever on the old signage, nor the old machine, the defendant clearly would not have been informed of any such time restrictions, therefore no contact could be formed for such. The new signage since August 2017, equally does not state a ‘Maximum Stay’, yet in smallest of fonts upon the new ticket machine only, one line states Maximum stay 2 hours, so again this is still not within their terms and conditions still. The Defendant believes this is another deliberate tactic to mislead consumers.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]d) The Defendant denies the vehicle was there twelve minutes past paid-for time, it is the Defendants honest belief that the vehicle was re-attended in fact less than 10 minutes after, going by the time on the machine and well within the required minimum ten minute grace period. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the vehicle was there twelve minutes over the time, going by the timer on the ticket machine, not another watch or camera set 3 minutes out of synchronization. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]e) As a member of the International Parking Community, the Claimant has violated the Code of Practice for which it is a requirement for Operators to comply with, ‘IPC CoP Para 15.0 Grace Periods’:-[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]IPC Code of Practice[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]15. Grace Periods

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]15.2 Drivers must be allowed a minimum period of 10 minutes to leave a site after a pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]15.3 The reference to 10 minutes in 15.2 above shall not apply where the period of pre-paid or permitted parking does not exceed 1 hour providing that the signage on the site makes it clear to the motorist, in a prominent font, that no grace period applies on that land.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]f) The old signage states “Parking charge notices will be issued for:- Failure to correctly enter your vehicle registration number” which the Defendant can see having zoomed in on one of the Defendants evidential photographs of the old signage, given this was illegible in situ. However, the old machine did not wheresoever offer any option of entering a vehicle registration number. The new machine which HX Car Park Management have installed (with receipts stating O&C Car Parks Ltd) since August 2017, a vehicle registration number is compulsory.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display both the old and the new signs. The Defendant is yet to receive a response to this request.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]a) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and receipts and therefore again, no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.

b) Inadequate signs and receipts incapable of binding the driver.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](i) Sporadic and illegible of site signage, no (old) signage whatsoever at the entrance to the car park in August 2017 - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice therefore no contract formed to pay any illegible sum.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](ii) No clear ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](iii) The signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract [/FONT][FONT=&quot]not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](iv) No promise was made by the keeper of the vehicle that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant whatsoever. Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]c) BPA CoP breaches:

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](i) The signs and receipts were not compliant in terms, of the font, size, lighting or positioning.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](ii) The sum pursued exceeds £100.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](iii) There is / was no compliant landowner contract, despite having asked for a copy of this, this has not been supplied to the Defendant by the Claimant to date.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
7. It is believed HX Car Park Management Limited do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name.


[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8. No legitimate interest:

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]a) This Claimant files serial claims regarding sites where they have lost the contract, known as revenge claims. In the absence of any such contract having been evidenced to the Defendant, despite this being requested, this is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages.


[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]9. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.


[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]10. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11. 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', ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

signature and date[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

Coupon-mad

I currently reside at >>>>>>>.

Remove the above, no need for your address on a defence.

And you have copied quite a rambling long defence - have a look at the concise one bargepole posted this morning (no link given, I believe newbies should use the forum to look up things to get used to how it works best). You will see how to cut out the unnecessary blurb!

Does the PDT have 'O & C Car Parks Ltd' on it, with the 'Ltd'? Or without?

spaniel101

Thanks Coupon-mad, yes it does - "O&C Car Parks Ltd." with a "VAT Registration number: 721 2504 80"

Coupon-mad

Great! So, the contract to park and tariff paid, was with a completely different Limited company...

Bisto2811

I have just read your post with great interest, I too am having the exact same problems with the same companies having parked in the Westgate Horton Street car park and we are going to county court, just awaiting the mediation part to be over they are wanting £230 from me despite the fact I paid for a ticket, they also didnt send me any of the information I requested ie evidence with the exception of a picture of my car entering and leaving. I really would like to liase with you on this matter since we are also up against the same greedy & ruthless serial litigators

Umkomaas

Bisto2811 wrote: »

I have just read your post with great interest, I too am having the exact same problems with the same companies having parked in the Westgate Horton Street car park and we are going to county court, just awaiting the mediation part to be over they are wanting £230 from me despite the fact I paid for a ticket, they also didnt send me any of the information I requested ie evidence with the exception of a picture of my car entering and leaving. I resally would like to liase with you on this matter since we are too up against the same greedy & rurhless serial litigators

You need to urgently read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2 as you seem to be heading into mediation without knowing/understanding the issues about it. The sticky also gives you expert advice on dealing with the court claim.

Any more info needed, please start a new thread of your own.