Please help! I have received a CCC from one of the cowboy firms!

Parkingbandit66

Hi Guys,

Thank you for the great work you do.

BRIEF HISTORY:

I don’t want to alert the company in case they monitor this site, so I will leave names and other identifying factors out.

I was issued with a parking ticket for parking on private land which forms part of the car park for a residential area and a major supermarket back in APRIL 2017. I believe this INVOICE was issued unfairly and I am disputing it because of the reasons stated below. I parked in a quiet enclosure/ side street. The picture I took show that I was parked in between two poles, with no signage whatsoever, in a quiet car park/ side street. I was not causing an obstruction or inconvenience to anyone in that area.

The main reason I am disputing this ticket is because, there was insufficient signage where I was parked. I have pictures on my phone that prove that where I was parked did not have any signs. I only took the pictures because I was alerted by a passer-by, who told me that parking tickets were issued in the area, and I had most likely been issued a ticket; otherwise, I would not have had a clue and driven off none the wiser. The ticket warden was described to me by the passer-by. In a shock and panic, I looked around the area I was parked and I did not see any signs. As I mentioned earlier, I then took a picture of where I was parked (in between two poles) and the lack of any signage in the surrounding area.

I went up to the ticket warden and asked her when tickets started being issued in the area and she said 'about three weeks ago'. The PCM warden then pointed at two signs behind me. I asked the ticket warden why the signs were not displayed on the poles, and surrounding area, in front of the empty space and she said, 'I don't know. You can appeal if you want'. In fairness, if you looked around, you would see the signs, but where I was parked was a bit of a blind spot, and I am used to parking in the area with no restrictions.

I can honestly say that I parked in that area in good faith and had no idea that it was being regulated. I cannot and should not be charged for a breach of contract with PCM because I had no idea that a contract was in place! This is one of the fundamental elements for the creation of a contract. I have not agreed to pay any charge and I was not aware of the restrictions in place when I parked there. I would not have parked there if the signs were clear and made me aware of the restrictions. This means no contract can be formed with the landowner and my charge was issued illegally.

Also, there are mitigating circumstances to explain why I parked where I did and I am requesting that the charge be waived for this reason. I have worked in that area for years and I can park for free in an area three minute walk from where I parked. I have been parking in that particular area for years and I have never had any issues. When I parked my car on that fateful day, there were no clear signs on the poles in front of me that made me think anything had changed (I have pictures on my phone to prove this and the pictures attached in this portal also shows this).

STEPS TAKEN SO FAR:

Unfortunatley, before reading this post, I used their internal appeal process, which I obviously lost. I have been issued with a CCC. I have drafted my response to their particulars of claim, which I will post. I am at the stage of filing in the direct questionnaire. I just need some advice before I make any more silly mistakes.
Thank you.

Parkingbandit66

MY DEFENCE IN RELATION THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM:


************************************************************

IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE
STATEMENT OF DEFENCE
CLAIM NUMBER: XX
CLAIMANT: XXX
DEFENDANT: XXX

I am XXXXXXXXXX, 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 driver and 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 this claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issuance of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN NUMBER- XXX) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms by the driver of the vehicle XXXX when it was parked at XXXXX on XXX. The defendant no longer has the PCN, or any of the earlier correspondence from the claimant, and the claimant has failed to follow any of the fundamental practice directions or CPR rules in relation to the provision of information (before claim and in the particulars of claim), but the defendant believes the PCN stated the contravention as “XXXXX” The defendant asserts that this cannot be a contravention when you are not aware of the restrictions and there is no contract in place between the defendant and the claimant.

3. Further, based upon the scant and deficient details contained in the ‘Letter before claim’, as well as the ‘Particulars of Claim’, it appears to be the Claimant's case that:
a. There was a contract formed by the Defendant and the Claimant on XXXX,
b. There was any agreement to pay a sum or parking charge,
c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site, including the entrance to the site, used by the defendant,
d. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums,
e. The Claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.

4. 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, including one of the entrances to the site, which was used by defendant on the day in question.
d. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums, which are in any case unsupported by the Beavis case and unsupported for cases on the small claims track,

e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were members at the time.

5. It is further denied that the Defendant is liable for the purported debt.

REBUTTAL OF CLAIM

6. The defendant asserts that the signage was insufficient in XXXXX. The defendant was parked in a blind spot and could not see the sparsely dotted signs at XXXXX. The defendant took all reasonable care when parking. As a result, the defendant did not enter into a contract with the claimant. Consequently, the defendant is not breaching any terms as stated in the particulars of claim.
a. A contract was not formed, and it is further denied that any contravention of “breaching the terms of parking on the land at XXXXXX” occurred or could have occurred because there was insufficient signage at the location to warn drivers of the parking charge. According to previous correspondence from the claimant, the parking charges only came into effect in March 2017, and having lived, worked and parked in that area for years, with no unobvious restriction in place, when the defendant parked his car on the day he received the PCN, he had no idea there was the restriction in place as alluded to in the particulars of claim. It is trite law that before a contract can be formed there must be an offer and acceptance, mutual consent of the parties, intention to create legal obligation and free consent of the parties.
b. The defendant did not agree to the parking charges because the signage was insufficient where the defendant parked his car, and the defendant was unaware of the charges. There was no absolute intention of accepting the offer by XXXXXXXX; thus, the defendant did not enter into a contract with XXXXXXXX. The defendant did not see, and therefore could not read the warning signage that was located elsewhere in XXXXXXXX. There are much cheaper places to park if the defendant did intend to incur a fee for parking e.g. being a police officer, the defendant could have parked for free in the police station, which is a 20 second drive from XXXXXX, or paid £6.00 for all day parking in a nearby car park.
c. The terms referred to in the particulars of claim are unclear. The defendant was not made aware of any terms (including charges/ damages) when he parked at the location; specifically in the area where the defendant parked, contrary to Lord Denning's 'Red Hand Rule' and contrary to the requirements of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
d. In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Acts 2012, which is the pretext upon which the claimant sourced the details of the defendant.
e. The defendant did not give Parking Control Management consent to process his data relating to him or his vehicle (XXX), and the defendant warned XXXXX of this fact back in April 2017. The defendant sent a notice under Section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998 warning against the unnecessary and unjustifiable processing of the defendant’s data. The claimant had no right to pass my details to a debt recovery agency- XXXXX Debt Recovery UK, and Gladstone’s Solicitors.
f. The signage, on and around the site in question, was unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. Therefore, no contract has been formed with the driver to pay the amount demanded by the Claimant, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days
g. The claimant company did not fully comply with their obligations under the International Parking Community Code of Practice, of which they were members at the time. For example, there are TWO ENTRANCES and one exit to XXXXX (where the defendant’s car was parked). One entrance is from XXXXX and the other entrance AND ONLY EXIT is via XXXXX.
The defendant came in and left via XXXX; therefore, the defendant did not see the parking restriction sign, on the lamppost, at the other entrance. The defendant drove back to the location today (04/10/2017) to take a picture, and video, of the XXXXXX entrance and there is STILL no signage at that entrance to inform motorists that the status quo has changed. There is signage on the residential houses, on the same road, but it can’t be seen as you are driving in unless you are looking out for it. The road is very narrow and there are cars parked in front of the notices. It would be very easy to collide with the cars if you are not paying attention to the road; as well as possibly hitting a pedestrian, which might be a child. The houses are residential homes with their own numbered parking bays; so motorists would not park in that area. However, the signage in that area is very easy to overlook especially as one is concentrating on the road and pedestrians. Looking at a house, while driving, is an unnatural and dangerous act and can be deemed as dangerous driving. The defendant is a police officer and takes driving matters very seriously. The defendant would most likely lose his job if he was the subject of any sort of criminal proceedings for dangerous driving. The defendant’s eyes are usually firmly on the road, only paying attention to road signs, which are usually on posts. If you drive into a controlled parking zone, the warning signs are always on both entrances and on lampposts. This is for safety reasons. Unlike the other entrance to XXXXX i.e. via XXXXX, there is no warning signage of the parking restriction on the lamppost (which displayed relevant road signs) leading into XXXXX from XXXXXX. The defendant refers to the International Parking Committee Code of Practice, part E, highlighting that entrance signs are necessary.
In the case of WALTHAM FOREST V VINE [CCRTF 98/1290/B2], where a car was clamped on the basis of a sign that the motorist didn’t see, it was held by all three judges i.e. Lord Justice Roch, Lord Justice May and Lord Justice Waller, that if a sign has not been seen by the motorist then the motorist does not consent to the terms and has not consented to being clamped.
LORD WALLER STATED:
In the clamping context it should not be overlooked that things may not be so clear as in the car parking context as the circumstances of this particular case show. Furthermore the onus on the person seeking to clamp in reliance on a notice must be very high. The particular circumstances of this case had also an unusual feature in that the plaintiff was ill. Thus in this case I would say:
1.it would be less clear than in many other circumstances to a motorist that they were trespassing in pulling off the road into an area where there was both a way in and a way out;
2. it would not be fair having regard to that factor and the position of the notice to say that any ordinary and sensible person should have realised at or before the time they parked their car that they would be clamped if they did so; and
3 that the plaintiff's illness made it in any event understandable how in her case she would not see the sign, or read it.
Thus I agree that in the circumstances of this case, it would be wrong to hold that the Plaintiff consented to and willingly assumed the risk of her car being clamped, and would allow the appeal to the extent indicated by Roch LJ.
This case is similar to the defendant’s. The defendant is used to parking in the area without unobvious restrictions. The defendant parked in an area with no signs in his immediate vicinity (insufficient signage). The defendant could not see the other signs, because they were out of view from where the defendant parked. The defendant had no reason to know that restrictions were in place because there were no signs at the entrance to XXXXX via XXXXXXX. The defendant was there to deal with a personal and distressing matter, thus after taking reasonable care with his parking i.e. not causing an obstruction, not parking in a residential bay or ASDA customer bay; the defendant attended to the personal matter at hand. The defendant also has a video that shows the view when driving in to XXXXXX via XXXXX up until where the defendant eventually parked. It is evident that the signage is insufficient, especially if you have local knowledge of the area.
h. If the Claimant wanted to impose a parking charge in an area, then they should have sufficient signage in that area, especially in conspicuous parking spaces, otherwise the claimant is trying to trap the motorist into an unfair and extortionate contract.
The clear signage is fundamental to the contract, and the Defendant invites the Court to find that the signage in XXXXXX, from the XXXXXXX entrance to the eventual parking space is insufficient. If a fundamental term to the contract is missing, then the contract cannot bind the parties. The defendant invites the Court to take these issues into account in determining the legality of the purported contract and consequent debt.

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

7. The Defendant would not have agreed to pay the demand of £160 or agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.
a. The amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council which is set at £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days.


9. The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim to £160. The Defendant submits the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; that these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts.
a. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under para 7.3 of practice direction 16, the particulars of claim fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”.
b. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation as to how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated to £160. This appears to be an added cost with no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the Protection of Freedom Acts 2012, Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
b. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

Non-disclosure of reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim:
10. XXXXXXXXXXX Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land. The Defendant has reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring an action regarding this claim.
a. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
b. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
c. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge
d. The Particulars of Claim are deficient in establishing whether the claim is brought in trespass. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis vs Parking Eye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

11. The Particulars of Claim fail to fulfil CPR Part 16.4 because it does not include a statement of the facts on which the claimant relies, only referring to a Parking Charge Notice with no further description; it fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence:
‘The driver of the vehicle registration XXXXXX incurred the parking charge(s) on APRIL 2017 for breaching the terms of parking on the land at XXXXX. The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £160.00 for Parking Charges / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £4.21 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgement at £0.04 per day’
The claimant is unclear as to whether it is a charge or damages. The claimant has also failed to provide grounds for damages. The claimant is seeking interest but has failed to state the date from which it is claimed and the date to which it is calculated. The claimant has wilfully and blatantly disregarded the rules and practice directions.


12. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to enable the defendant to file a full defence. 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 parking charges/ damages was incurred. This is vague, very confusing, speculative, frivolous and vexatious.
c) The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge/ damages 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/ damages” 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. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing a cause of action.

13. The Defendant invites the court to strike out or dismiss the claim under Rule 3.4(2)(a) of PRACTICE DIRECTION 3A as having not set out a concise statement of the nature of the claim or disclosed reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim (Part 16.4(1)(a) and PRACTICE DIRECTION 16 paragraphs 3.1-3.8). In C3GF84Y (Mason, Plymouth County Court), the judge struck out the claim brought by KBT Cornwall Ltd as Gladstones Solicitors had not submitted proper Particulars of Claim, and similar reasons were cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''. The Practice Direction also sets out the following example which is analogous to this claim: ‘those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’.’ Having had so many claims struck out by the courts, the claimant is fully aware of what is required of them. If they do not comply, they are also aware of the consequences. The claimants is a sophisticated and trained party, they have no excuse for non-compliance.

14. The Defendant researched the matter online, and discovered that the Claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), an organisation operated by Gladstones Solicitors. They also operate the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant’s trade body, the IPC. This research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors. The individuals in question are John Davies, and William Hurley. These findings indicate a conflict of interest. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.

15. 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 or even checking for a true cause of action. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims and the solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

16. The Defendant believes 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. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to the significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

17. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies are using the small claims track as a tool to intimidate and scare unsuspecting individuals into paying phantom debts, which is something the Courts should not be seen to support. Especially as most individuals, including the defendant, are unaware of the vast array of court procedures and are petrified by the mention of the words ‘legal proceedings’.

18. 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, speculative, frivolous and vexatious. The claimant is trying to bully and scare the defendant into paying a bogus charge.

19. The Defendant invites the court to dismiss this claim outright, as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under Practice Direction 16, set out by the Ministry of Justice and also Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under 16.4 and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14. The ‘letter before claim’ dated 03/07/2017, that the defendant received from the claimant was just as deficient. The defendant wrote to the claimant via email on 10/07/2017 reminding them to comply with ‘Annex A para 2 of the Practice direction for pre action conduct and protocols’ under the civil procedure rules namely, the basis on which the claim is made, clear summary of the facts, an explanation of how the charge was calculated, the documents they intent to rely on etc, but the claimant ignored the letter and served the defendant with the county court claim. This claim is merely the epitome of the ‘robo claims’ pandemic. I respectfully ask the court to dismiss this claim and to make an order preventing XXXXX Ltd and/ or any of their cohorts from harassing me any further. This issue has hung over my head like the ‘sword of Damocles’ and my stress levels are currently at an unmanageable level.

The defendant believes that the facts stated in this defence form are true and I am duly authorised to sign this statement.

Parkingbandit66

Please let me know what you think my chances of success are.

In hindsight, I realise that may have been trucks blocking the signs when I parked. That's why I didn't see them also. Is it too late too add that? Or can I just slip that in during my witness statement under the 'insufficient signage' defence i.e. where I was parked did not have any signs. Thus, I did not see the other signs because they were most likely blocked by trucks. I am not 100 per cent certain about this, but shouldn't the onus should be on the plaintiff to prove that my view wasn't blocked by trucks? I would not have that evidence because I did not know that I had to take pictures of the trucks because I did not know there was an issue with parking (if you catch my drift)!

Thank you again for the amazing service you do! You lot deserve a mention in the Queen's birthday honours list!

nosferatu1001

Given we dont know who this is, your chances arent very well known

Was the driver identified? Simple yes or no. If Yes, you blow one usual defence point, as I am assuming this wont be Parking eye as they dont usually have boots on the ground.

What youve done is, instaead of giving us some background, where this is, dates, copies of documents etc, expected us to read about 3 A4 pages worth of text.

Usually in small claims you have about 70:30 for the best cases, as DJ lottery is in play.

Also, if you are truly at the stage of filing the DQ, you have already submitted your defence - so is the defence you posted the one you submitted? If no, have you paid £100 to amend your defence?

Parkingbandit66

The company is PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT LTD.

Yes, I stupidly identified myself as the driver during the appeal process and the defence above is my already filed response to the Particulars of Claim. I was reading this forum throughout though (after the appeal process).

Any help going forward would be really appreciated. I’m happy to give any information you need.

Thank you.

Coupon-mad

PCM - same as any Gladstones case.

already filed response to the Particulars of Claim.

OK.

I am at the stage of filing in the direct questionnaire.

Just as long as you are not filling in the blank N159 (paper hearing version) that Gladstones sent you with the standard letter about hearing the case on the papers.

You have a N180 from the court, or have downloaded one, yes? And know what to say about the stupid idea about the case being heard on the papers?

System

@PARKINGBANDIT66

How did this case end up. Did they drop or did you settle?

Quentin

The op hasn't logged in since last November.

Maybe a pm might alert him/her to your post here

Parkingbandit66

So sorry! I have been meaning to come back and thank you all! They dropped the case a week before it went to trial in April 2018.

This forum was a life saver! Thank you so much! God bless.

Parkingbandit66

This forum is a lifesaver. Thank you all so much.

Coupon-mad

Parkingbandit66 wrote: »

So sorry! I have been meaning to come back and thank you all! They dropped the case a week before it went to trial in April 2018.

This forum was a life saver! Thank you so much! God bless.

So glad to hear your successful outcome!

And another one bites the dust... :T