PCM Parking fine - Heath Parade NW9 - CCJ stage

itsmepip

@amoUk - thanks for the info and congratulations on the win !
Will follow your cue on this ! Gladstone’s need to know that they have no chance of winning with such unscrupulous means..

pappa_golf

you will have to TELL the judge , he will not know or care , if it gets that far

itsmepip

Anyone who is still reading this..I thought it would be good to update that the hearing was successful and the CCJ will be removed.
Next step I've been told is to prepare a robust defence for the case when it is transferred to the district court if the parking company want to still pursue the case.
The district Judge on the hearing said that I will receive a DQ soon and will need to file another defence within 14 days.
The judge suggested to add to my defence whether or not the company has authority of the landowner - in fact I was asked during the hearing - I produced the land registry documents that showed the land is not owned by Grahame Park.
Needless to say the parking company did not turn up.

Umkomaas

The judge suggested to add to my defence whether or not the company has authority of the landowner - in fact I was asked during the hearing - I produced the land registry documents that showed the land is not owned by Grahame Park.

Are you aware of the current status?

http://lbbspending.blogspot.co.za/2018/02/HeathParade.html

itsmepip

That is great news and thanks for sharing @Umkomaas

I really hope that some common sense prevails and the parking charge notice is dropped and they don!!!8217;t go to court to waste anyone!!!8217;s time.

They never had landowner authority anyway and now this is council controlled.

Coupon-mad

Love the fact the Judge suggested what to add to your defence.

If you are still £255 out of pocket (plus your costs to attend this hearing) mention that in your defence and ask that the Judge orders that the Claimant must pay all of your costs in the event that the claimant discontinues now.

Show us your draft defence, start putting it together based on other Heath Parade ones from last year. Add the new info re the location, plus the above about the Defendant's fear that the Claimant will now discontinue, leaving you with the huge set aside fee and wasted costs.

itsmepip

Happy Sunday...

After a bit more research about a defence format, below is what I've drafted.
In the set aside judgement letter, the judge has ordered to file any defence by 7 March.
However the letter doesn't say what address to send it to.
I think I'll call the court tomorrow to ask about next steps.
Anyway, below is the full defence - it's a long read, but if anyone can provide feedback that would be absolutely fantastic.
Again, thanks all for the help.


In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number XXXXXXXX

DEFENCE

BETWEEN:
Parking Control Management UK LTD (PCM) (Claimant)
v
[NAME] (Defendant)




________________________________

DEFENCE

________________________________

I am [name] of [address] and I am the Defendant in this matter.

Denial of claim:
The claim [Parking Charge number and court claim number] is denied in its entirety except where explicitly admitted here. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to the Claimant's case.

i. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case
ii. The signage did not offer a contract to a motorist , the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 applies and Consumer Rights Act 2015 rules apply
The Claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have never been provided. As the Claimant has not provided this information, any signage details have been inferred from stock photographs and the details may not be correct. Minor variants in text may occur. All references to signage therefore, are subject to change.

Reimbursement for costs incurred:
I also invite the court to order the Claimant to reimburse the defendant for all costs incurred as per the Schedule of Costs submitted. I also fear that due to the above reasons imvalidating the claim, the Claimant may stop pursuing the charges, leaving me with a large set aside fee and associated costs.

1. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case

1.1. I understand that the Claimant is a Parking Company which seeks to claim for Parking Charge Notices ; which the Claimant believes are due as a result of an alleged breach of contract for parking by a motorist. I believe the claim has no merit and should be dismissed and I also assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:
1.2. In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. No evidence of such authority was supplied by the Claimant at any time, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant.
1.3. The land for which the Claimant is asserting authority to issue parking charges is now under local authority control by Barnet Council. I have attached a copy of the notice from Barnet Council.
1.4. Additionally, at the time when the parking charge notice was issued against me by the Claimant, I believe the Claimant assets that they had authority to issue parking charges on behalf of Genesis Housing for the land on the north side of Grahame Park Way, whereas it is clear from the Land Registry detail a copy of which I have attached to this defence that is not the case.
1.5. Based on the above points, the court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.
1.6. The Claimant is also fully aware of additional cases that have held no merit in court based on the above reasons because in all such cases at the site under question, PCM UK were the parking company.

2. The signage did not offer a contract to a motorist , the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 applies and Consumer Rights Act 2015 rules apply

2.1. It is asserted that the Claimant charges are unlawful, as they are in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999, specifically regulation 8(1) of the Regulations and article 6(1) of the Unfair Terms Directive (in providing that an unfair term is not to be binding on the consumer), which is to redress the imbalance between the contracting parties!!!8217; bargaining power, and to re-establish equality between them, so that the contract terms which bind the parties are such as the parties would have agreed if they had negotiated the contract on equal terms.
2.2. It is asserted that no reasonable person, of whatever means, would willingly agree to pay a charge of £100 as a consequence of instantly stopping on a public highway, if they had the opportunity to negotiate the contract on equal terms with the other contracting party.
2.3. The site appears to be a lay-by and part of the public highway and there was no information close enough to be read by an approaching driver to suggest it is private land or otherwise restricted. Neither there are any physical barriers preventing public vehicle access.
2.4. On the material date, the vehicle is shown as stopped for a very brief period of time (4 minutes 13 seconds) with the ignition lights on for the most part. I attach photographs obtained from the Claimant!!!8217;s website to support this. There was no nearby signage prohibiting a driver from entering the area. It is clear that the signs were so high and the writing so small it cannot be read from a vehicle or even by a pedestrian until right by the sign. I believe a parking warden manually took photographs of the vehicle at the layby on the relevant date. If the parking company genuinely wished to prevent parking, the warden could remain on site and politely ask drivers to leave immediately. They would also use large signs which can be seen from inside vehicles from the driver!!!8217;s seat.
2.5. The Claimant signage with the largest font at this site states No Customer Parking at Any Time A further sign with much smaller writing and higher up states - The loading bay is only for authorised vehicles actively loading & unloading when delivering to the commercial tenants of Heath parade. It is submitted that if these notices are attempting to make a contractual offer, then as they are forbidding they do not fulfil the basic requirement of a contract, which is that each party to the contract must offer valuable consideration to the other party, on clear terms capable of acceptance. In this case neither the Claimant, nor their principal, the landowner, is offering anything to motorists. The notices cannot, therefore, reasonably be construed as having created a contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant.
2.6. The above point was tested in the County Court at High Wycombe, in the case of Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd v Bull & 2 Others (B4GF26K6, 21 April 2016), where District Judge Glen dismissed all three claims, stating in his judgment that: !!!8220;If the notice had said no more than if you park on this roadway you agree to pay a charge then it would have been implicit that PCM was saying we will allow you to park on this roadway if you pay £100 and I would agree with Mr Samuels!!!8217; first analysis that essentially the £100 was a part of the core consideration for the licence and was not a penalty for breach. The difficulty is that this notice does not say that at all. This notice is an absolute prohibition against parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway. It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway. All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass.!!!8221;
2.7. While this is a County Court decision and therefore not binding, it is on all fours with the present case and may be considered as persuasive.
2.8. The IPC code of conduct states that a grace period must be allowed in order that a driver might spot signage, go up to it, read it and then decide whether to accept the terms or not. A reasonable grace period in any car park would be from 5-15 minutes from the period of stopping. This grace period was not observed and therefore the operator is in breach of the industry code of practice. Additionally no contract can be in place by conduct until a reasonable period elapses.
2.9. Thus, the signage is simply a device to entrap motorists into a situation whereby the Claimant sends them invoices for unwarranted and unjustified charges, for which motorists can have no contractual liability due to the terms and conditions not having been sufficiently brought to their attention. This activity is bordering on, if not actually crossing the boundary of, a criminal offence of Fraud By False Representation.
2.10. In addition, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 rules that if signage has multiple interpretations the interpretation most favourable to the consumer applies. It is clear from this the signage with the largest font should apply.
2.11. In the alternative, if it was held that the signage was contractually valid, it would be impossible for a motorist to have read the terms and conditions contained therein from a moving or stopped vehicle, and if the vehicle is stopped, the !!!8216;contravention!!!8217; according to the Claimant is already committed.
2.12. The above point was recently tested in several cases regarding Hayes and Harlington station. There a similar situation arises as the vehicles were charged for briefly stopping but the signs are far away from vehicles and high up.
2.13. In all cases it was ruled that no contract was entered by performance as the signage could not be read from a vehicle. No transcripts are available but as PCM UK were the claimant in all cases they will be fully aware of the cases; C3GF46K8, C3GF44K8, C3GFY8K8.
2.14. Additionally, the supposed contract fails informational requirements for contracts established in the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation And Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, enacted 13 June 2014.
2.15. Furthermore, the charge of £100 is a penalty and unfair consumer charge. The leading case on this matter is ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. In that case it was ruled that the penalties rule was engaged but the charge was not unfair because the motorist had the bargain of 2 hours of valuable free parking in exchange for the risk of paying £100 for overstaying. The risk was clearly brought to the attention of the consumer in a huge font. Here, there is no valuable consideration on offer and no bargain for the consumer, and the charge is hidden in small print. It is submitted that no motorist would agree to pay £100 instantly on stopping and this is therefore and unfair consumer term in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
2.16. In addition to the £100 !!!8216;parking charge!!!8217;, for which liability is denied, the Claimant!!!8217;s legal representatives, Gladstones Solicitors, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £162 (bringing the amount allegedly owed by me to £262 in total) which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. The Court is invited to report Gladstones Solicitors to the Solicitors!!!8217; Regulation Authority for this deliberate attempt to mislead the Court, in contravention of their Code of Conduct.
2.17. On this basis I believe that the Claimant has not provided any reasonable cause of action and thus the claim should be dismissed in its entirety.
2.18. The Court is thus invited to dismiss this Claim.

3. Schedule of Costs

3.1. The Claimant!!!8217;s actions had caused the court to issue a County Court Judgement (Number: ) which was eventually set aside on [date ] by judge [] at [court]. The set aside process cost me time, money and caused high levels of distress to my well being.
3.2. Schedule of costs
Research and preparation of defence for default judgement and claim as litigant in person @ £18 per hour, 7 hours.
Total £126
Printing of 3 copies of witness statement and skeleton argument and postage
Estimate £25.
1 day off work to attend hearings on [date] @£18 per hour X 8 hours
£144
Transport Charges for attending court and return for 1 days on [date]
[Uber charges]
Reimbursement for application for setting aside default judgement £255
Total costs claimed £SUM of above


Statement of Truth:
I believe that the facts stated in this Statement are true.
Full name: [NAME]
Address: [ADDRESS]
Dated:

Signed: __________________________________

itsmepip

So..I called up Barnet Court to ask what 'file and serve' means as instructed on judgement form sent by the court..
File - file defence to court by stipulated date
Serve - serve defence to Claimant.
I guess most already know it, but I didn't and had assumed that 2 copies of defence need to be sent to court.
Anyway - can anyone tell me whether I should send the 'serve' part to PCM UK or to Gladstone or both to be on the safe side?

Coupon-mad

Just noticed you didn't get a response.

Have PCM replied to the defence and do you have a hearing date for the case?

itsmepip

In case anyone is reading, just FYI, Gladstone have dropped the case from court - thankfully common sense isn!!!8217;t that uncommon.
I got an email from them last week noting they
will not pursue this case anymore.
I called up the court to confirm the status and they said that the case was no longer active.
It is unlikely they would have won in court especially now that the council has taken over the place!

Thank you all so much for your support.

As for the silence - was under an extremely busy schedule and was abroad.

I think this thread can be closed now.