Residential parking - received a claim form

Drdr

Hi everyone,
I used to live in an area which has both residential and commercial parking, which i had an allocated space in the residential section. This space was shared by myself and my 2 flatmates, so when the space was used, my vehicle would be parked in the residential area. Whilst this had been confirmed with the parking attendants who operate the yard, as the number plate was on the whitelist, i then received multiple PCNs now totaling £1300.

Having appealed to SIP parking (rejected) i decided not to appeal to the IAS and just wait it out. I received LBC from gladstones and responded asking for proof of parking violation, NTKs, photos etc, which they sent through in full.

I then received a claim form through which having a read of the forums i know i need to respond to within 14 days, not writing anything in the defense.

So i guess it's time to start writing a defense as this one seems to be going all the way. Any advice regarding the following would be much appreciated:

1) I've reached out to the landowner to try cancel these PCNs. Is this something that will work at this stage or have i missed the boat?

2) in total I received 10 PCNs, but this claim form is only for 7 of them. I have received other letters chasing payment for 2 of them but they seem to have ignored one of them. Is this something i could use in a defense?

3) should i acknowledge the claim form straight away, or will delaying it for a few days buy me more time?

Many thanks in advance

nosferatu1001

You need to acknowledge, do that online.
Dont contest jurisdiction unless you live outside E&W

1) No, worth a try. You were autorised to be there
2) No
3) acknowleding extends the time to submit a defence from 14 to 28 days from date of SERVICE, which is 5 ays after date of issue.

Drdr

So i've left this very late, despite all the advice here on the forum, i blame the christmas period.... This is for multiple PCNs which individually are defendable on different reasons, which i have found quite hard to write in this defense.
Statement of Defence

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: XXXXXX

Between:

Sip Parking Ltd v XXXX

DEFENCE


Preliminary

1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

Background
3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXXX which is the subject of these proceedings.

4. It is admitted that on XXXXXXXX (multiple dates)the Defendant's vehicle was parked at XXXXX

5. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
5.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
5.2.1. there was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
5.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

5.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

6. Loading or unloading is not 'parking' and signs cannot override existing rights enjoyed by tenants and their visitors, as was found in the Appeal case decided by His Honour Judge Harris QC in June 2016 at Oxford County Court, in case number B9GF0A9E: 'Jopson vs Home Guard Services.
a. There are no clear markings of Single/Double yellow lines in those loading/unloading areas, nor marked bay numbers. There are photograph evidence to prove the same. There is no signage to prevent parking in the unmarked areas, nor is there an offer of parking. This therefore becomes a matter of trespass, which the Claimant has no authority to pursue.
7. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

8. 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.
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 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. It was not illuminated and placed high up on a wall. As such, it 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 driver to pay the amount demanded by the Claimant, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.
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 £100 parking charge) sufficiently prominent to satisfy Lord Dennings "red hand rule”.
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.

10. The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £XXX to £XXXX. 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 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”.
b. 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 £XXX to £XXXX. 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.
b. 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.

Non-disclosure of reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim:
11. 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.
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 ParkingEye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

12. 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
XXXXXXX incurred the parking
charge(s) on XXXX (multiple dates)for breaching the terms of parking on the land atXXXX
The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or
is the Keeper of the Vehicle
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
XXXX for Parking Charges / Damages and
indemnity costs if applicable, together with
interest of £XXX pursuant to s69 of the
County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing
to Judgement at £XXX per day’

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

14. 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’.’

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.
18. 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.

19. 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.

19. 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.

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



largely borrowed but now i dont really have time for anything else. Deadline is tomorrow. Is this better than nothing?

Coupon-mad

Only 'deny' being the driver if you honestly can say that at a hearing in front of a Judge. If not, just remove the denial and put the PPC to strict proof as to the driver's identity and each occasion or to prove their full compliance with the POFA for keeper liability.

Remove 'BPA' here:

As such, it did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice.

largely borrowed but now i dont really have time for anything else. Deadline is tomorrow. Is this better than nothing?

Yes yes yes, definitely! Email it of course, to the ccbcaq email addy within 24 hours. Not by post.

nosferatu1001

Signed as well! So print, sign, scan to pdf and email.

Drdr

Update:

I thought this was all finished with but how wrong am I!!!

So for some reason, the multiple PCNs i received were split into two separate claims by SIP. I submitted AOS and my statement of defense for both claims (call them claim 1 and claim 2). I received DQ for claim 1, submitted it, and received a Notice of Discontinuance from Gladstones. Obviously i was over the moon! I hoped claim 2 would go a similar way but was still waiting to receive my DQ paperwork.

I recently logged into MCOL to find that the DQ was sent out quite recently, 15 months after i submitted my defense, to my old address( i have since moved house twice). I have been updating my address on MCOL but they have obviously been sending correspondence to the address used on my AOS.

As i was no longer receiving the paperwork, i missed the deadlines. Now on MCOL it reads as such:
Your defence was received on 08/01/2018
DQ filed by claimant on 16/01/2018
DQ sent to you on 19/06/2019
General sanctions order was made on 18/07/2019
Your defence was rejected on 07/08/2019
Defence was struck out on 07/08/2019


Obviously I'm gutted, having thought this was all over. It seems unfair that it was sent out so much later than the rest and to an old address, despite me updating my address online. Was i meant to write to someone instead?? Regardless, anyone have any bright ideas as to my next steps?

Many thanks in advance

The_Deep

Well I for one would get my MP on board as nine times out of ten, (more in "own space" claims), these tickets are scams.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Have you posted this on Legal Beagles, they are more knowledgeable of court stuff?

Drdr

So in the end, I submitted an N244 form to have the judgement set aside before a CCJ was issued. This was accepted and so I now have a date at the County Court. What I don't really understand is if the hearing is just to reinstate my defence as the DQ was sent to an old address, or if this hearing is actually to decide the outcome of my case? Any advice would be much appreciated as if its the latter, I'll need to prepare a witness statement quite quickly!

Coupon-mad

if its the latter, I'll need to prepare a witness statement quite quickly!

It is to hear your case and that hearing date letter will mention about your WS deadline.

Drdr

That's the thing I don't quite understand...the hearing notice makes no mention of a witness statement. The notice reads "the hearing of the defendants application for Defence to be reinstated will take place at ****. Time estimate 20 minutes." That's it!

Coupon-mad

Ah so it's not to hear your case, it's for you to say why your defence should be reinstated:

I recently logged into MCOL to find that the DQ was sent out quite recently, 15 months after i submitted my defense, to my old address( i have since moved house twice). I have been updating my address on MCOL but they have obviously been sending correspondence to the address used on my AOS.

So this is not about your defence or evidence against the charge, it's about you showing the Judge that the CCBC had your correct address yet sent a DQ out of the blue over a year later, to an old address, and you could not have expected that and in the interests of justice, you ask that your defence is reinstated.

Take evidence, printouts of the recent updated address and why you say the CCBC/MCOL had it all along.

The Judge will say 'but this was a different claim' and you need to say 'I realise that but as an individual data subject I reasonably expected that MCOL/the CCBC had my current address and am not sure what else I could reasonably have done, and did not anticipate a form being sent out now to my old address for a defence I lodged shortly after Christmas almost two years ago'.

Then show your proof that MCOL had your address.