Help Please! Parking Fine County Court Pack

Loadsofchildren123

I think you can be fairly confident and relax..... you paid and can prove it. the only issue here is their mistake, but you can show you called the correct number and you can confirm that you used the code they sent you.
they won't be able to produce the operator you spoke to, and you were the only other one party to that phone call so unless you come across as completely shifty then the judge really has no viable option other than to believe you. If there was human error, it wasn't yours. You cover this in your WS, saying how you carefully noted down the code and read it back to her and she confirmed it was correct, and then when you entered it online you double checked it. So any mistake was theirs and you cannot be held liable because of it.

Loadsofchildren123

by all means use headings that you then delete, to help yourself, but it's useful to leave some in as it breaks it up for the judge and makes it much easier to follow. The better your documents, the more favourable he will be to you.

pandorapandora

Hi - so sorry I've been off radar - sudden health issue completely taken over the last 10 days, tests, assessments and now awaiting urgent scan - bit of a limbo pre-Christmas nightmare but ANYWAY - Back to case in hand!

I've amended as suggested -
1. Do you think I should take out section 4 about signage altogether?
2. I think it's all logical now. Should I put anything else in my summary?

Thanks so much for your help

---

PRELIMINARY MATTERS:
Claim should be struck out pursuant to Rule 3.4 by the court exercising its inherent case management powers.

SUMMARY:
The Defendant denies any liability to the Claimant for the following reasons:

i. No contract was formed between the parties;
ii. In any event, even if a contract was formed (which is denied) the Defendant complied with it, as payment was made for the full period of parking
iii. The Claimant has no locus standi to bring the claim


1. PAYMENT FOR PARKING WAS MADE AS INSTRUCTED:

The Defendant admits that on XX/XX/2016 she parked on land between Port Street and Tariff Street, Manchester, which is private land on which the Claimant operates. However, the Defendant denies that she breached the Claimant's terms and conditions for parking because she paid in full for the entire period of parking, by purchasing a pay and display ticket and by following the Claimant's instructions in order to top up that initial period of parking by paying for a further period of parking using the internet service provided by the Claimant.
Alternatively, if any contract was formed, the Defendant was not in breach of it because the Defendant complied with its terms by paying for the full period of parking.

2. INADEQUATE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM:

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 XXX incurred the parking charge(s) on XX/XX/2016 for breaching the terms of parking on the land at Tariff Street Manchester.
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 £10.64 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgement at £0.04 per day’

The Defendant invites the court to dismiss this claim out 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 claimant has not provided enough details in the Particulars of Claim for 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 and the Claimant has not specified whether the claim is brought for breach of contract or in trespass.
a. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.

b. The Claimant has simply 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.

e. 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. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.


3. INVALID AND EXCESSIVE CHARGES:

a. There was any no 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.

b. The Claimant failed to fully comply with its obligation to follow the Approved Operator Scheme's Code of Practice of the International Parking Community; such compliance is necessary for the "penalty rule" to be disengaged, as found in the Beavis case.

c. The demanded value of the Claim of £170.64 has been artificially inflated from £1 for a valid hour’s parking. These added costs are excessive and unconscionable have not actually been incurred by the Claimant. This is especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council for parking after the expiry of paid for time at a Pay and Display bay, which is set at £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days.

d. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”.

e. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £1 for a valid one hour parking charge to £170.64. This appears to be an added cost with no apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

f. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

4. FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SIGNAGE:

The signage on this site was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist.

a. 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 was OFFERED in respect of additional signage - the terms of any offer must be clear and certain in order to be capable of acceptance, and a vague reference to additional charges is not clear or certain and not capable of acceptance.

b. The size of font of the prices advised for parking is much larger than the font of the contract and the offer is not sufficiently brought to the attention of the motorist, nor are the onerous terms (the punitive parking charge - effectively a private 'fine') sufficiently prominent to satisfy Lo Lord Denning's 'Red Hand Rule' and contrary to the requirements of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

c. 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 POFA.

d. The PayByPhone signage specifically states that there is “No need to display a ticket in your car” therefore there was no breach of any ‘relevant obligation’ or ‘relevant contract’ as required under Schedule 4 of POFA.

e. If the Claimant wanted to impose a condition to continuously display permits, then they should have drafted clear instruction to that effect, requiring specific terms of how to 'continuously display' when a paper ticket has not been issued or there is no contravention.

f. Where contract terms have different meanings, as in this instance when a paper ticket was not issued due to the chosen method of payment, then Section 69 of the CRA 2015 provides a statutory form of the contra proferentem rule, such that the consumer must be given the benefit of the doubt.
The term is fundamental to the contract, and the Defendant invites the Court to find that it is not transparent and therefore unfair. If a fundamental term to the contract is deemed to be unfair, then the contract will cease to bind the parties. The Defence invites the Court to take these issues into account in determining the fairness of the term.

5. FAILURE TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE GROUNDS:

The Claimant has failed to establish reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim:

a. SIP Parking Ltd are 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 action regarding this claim.

b. 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.

c. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question.

d. 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.

e. 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 ParkingEye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

6. STRIKE-OUT/DISMISSAL:

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’.’

7. GLADSTONES/IPC CONFLICT:

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.

8. ROBO CLAIMS:

The Defendant believes the terms 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 their significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.
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. 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.


9. IMPROPER ‘SMALL CLAIMS’ USE:

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.

10. CLAIMANT CONDUCT:

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.

Signed:

KeithP

Remember - close of business on 20th December is 4pm TODAY.

Less than three hours away.

You need to print your statement, scan it back in as a pdf and send it as an email attachment to ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

Loadsofchildren123

Personally I would take out the signage section.


You can't have it both ways - you are saying you saw the signs and complied with them. Then you are saying the signs weren't sufficient so were not noticeable. So they contradict each other. I think you are stronger without that. You paid and can show you paid. They made a clerical error which is not your fault and does not put you in breach because you followed ALL instructions.

Coupon-mad

I agree, but hopefully you've printed it out (minus the signage part) by now, signed & dated it and scanned it back in to attach to an email this afternoon.

pandorapandora

Hi all

Thanks so much for all of your help.

I don't have access to a scanner or printer so I filled in the form on Adobe Acrobat, saved it and returned it via email along with my defence. I've been panicking trying to call the MCOL helpline this afternoon to check that submitting like that was OK, but struggled to get through - only just got through now and they said that's fine - they get this a lot and just send out a copy through the post for a signature. Phew!

Thanks again everyone, you've been great! I'll let you know when I have an update.

pandorapandora

Hi all

I had a letter from the court before New Year advising of the acceptance of my defence submission.

1. I've now had an email from the parking company with their Questionnaire attached. They've said they want to have the case dealt with in writing or if I object, in their nearest Court. Any advice?

2 I've had a blank Questionnaire sent to me by the court for me to fill in too - do I request MY nearest court, or writing?

The email from them is below.

Thanks in advance

---

"We act for the Claimant and have notified the Court of our Client’s intention to proceed with the claim.

Please find attached a copy of our Client’s completed Directions Questionnaire, which will be filed with the court upon their request. You will note we intend to request a special direction that the case be dealt with on the papers and without the need for an oral hearing

This request is sought simply because the matter is in our Client’s opinion relatively straightforward and the costs incurred by both parties for attending an oral hearing would be disproportionate.

You will note our Client has elected not to mediate. Its decision is not meant to be in any way obstructive and is based purely on experience, as mediation has rarely proven beneficial in these types of cases. Notwithstanding this, our Client would be happy to listen to any genuine payment proposals that you wish to put forward.

Yours sincerely..."

pappa_golf

They've said they want to have the case dealt with in writing or if I object, urt in their nearest Co. Any advice?


They've said they want to have the case dealt with in writing no you want this delt with in court

in their nearest Court. NO YOUR local or chosen court

KeithP

The answers you are looking for are in post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

You should be using that post as a first port of call for all guidance at this stage.

But to summarise... no, you do not want the case decided 'on the papers', no, you want it at your local court, and you agree to no mediation.