SCS Law want £600

GreatWhite

KeithP wrote: »

If you did that, the heading above para 12 needs adjustment - remove 'alternative'

Para 12 needs adjustment.

Para 12.1 needs adjustment.

Para 12.1.2 refers to IPC CoP - but Umkomaas has already told you that.

Para 12.2. needs adjustment.

Para 13 needs adjustment - talking about lease easements.

Para 14 also discusses residential situations.

As Umkomaas said earlier, you picked the wrong starting point.

On 24 March you told us you have received a Claim Form.
What is the date of issue on your court claim form?
Are you sure your Defence needs to be emailed tomorrow?

I don't see it mentioned, but did you do the Acknowledgement of Service within fourteen days of service of the Claim Form?

Hi. I had not done the acknowledgement of service, and immediately did it when you mentioned it, so thank you.

KeithP

And have you now filed your Defence?

A week since your last post.
What has happened in that week?

GreatWhite

I've basically cut out most of the content which related to residential side of the matter.

I know that there will most likely be one or 2 paragraphs that will need some sort of adjustment, so hoping you guys can help me with that before I send it off.

This is what I have so far.

Preliminary

1. The Particulars of this 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.

2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.

Background

3) It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with [provider] with 2 named drivers permitted to use it.

4) It is admitted that on [date's] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]

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 exists, 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) It is denied that any "parking charges or indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

Defence - Failure to set out clearly parking terms

7) The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
7.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was inadequate.
7.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
7.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the British Parking Assocation ("BPA") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
7.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3

7.2. The Defendant avers that the site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.

8) Parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

9) The Defendant denies any separate contract with the Claimant in respect of parking arrangements. The Claimant has offered nothing by way of consideration, given the primacy of contract enjoyed by residents who already have rights of way, and have been parking in that space for years and have a reasonable expectation to continue to do so, free of harassment, predatory conduct and 'parking charges'.

9.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
9.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
9.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee's ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
9.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of existing residents, as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3

9.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. In fact, the existing rights of residents should have been protected.

9.3 The charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye v Beavis distinguished.

10) It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

11) It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

12) It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

13) It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

14) The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against residents, alleging 'debts' for parking at their own homes is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

15) The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors, SCS Law, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centres in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).

16) The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

17) If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Signed

Date

Coupon-mad

5) It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle.

Deny? Can you honestly?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74163259#post74163259

On the front low down on the NTK, it tells the keeper they will be liable (the 28 days to keeper liability statement: 'if, after the period of 28 days beginning with...'). Please read it properly.

Either that, or you have got the weird UKPC ones that go on about an odd 42 days!

So, what does YOUR NTK say about keeper liability, and the answer is not 'nothing'.

Answer please?

Also you have copied a residential car park one about Jopson and Saeed v Plustrade. Yet you said this was round the back of a WORK car park. Not the same.

GreatWhite

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Deny? Can you honestly?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74163259#post74163259


Answer please?

Also you have copied a residential car park one about Jopson and Saeed v Plustrade. Yet you said this was round the back of a WORK car park. Not the same.

So this is what it says:

Parking attendant ... had reasonable cause to believe that the following breach of the terms and conditions of parking occured on private land (details of which were clearly and prominently displayed and agreed to by the driver by the act of parking the vehicle.

A parking charge of £90.00 is outstanding and payable within 28 days of the date of this parking ticket. A reduced charge of £50.00 is payable if payment is received within 14 days of the date of this parking ticket. If payment is received within 14 days the reduced charge will be accepted in full settlement.

Also, because it was behind my work car park, is there anything I can use instead of Jopson and Saeed v Plustrade?

Many thanks.

KeithP

Well, if you are going to take a week to answer every question, why should anyone else rush?

You still haven't answered the questions I asked on 8 April.
Here it is again:
What is the date of issue on your court claim form?

On what date did you do the AoS?

If you did the AoS within 19 days of the date of issue of your Claim Form, then you have 33 days from the date of issue of the Claim Form to file your Defence.

By what date do you need to file your Defence?

I am concerned that you are letting this slip away.

Coupon-mad

So this is what it says:

Parking attendant ... had reasonable cause to believe that the following breach of the terms and conditions of parking occured on private land (details of which were clearly and prominently displayed and agreed to by the driver by the act of parking the vehicle.

A parking charge of £90.00 is outstanding and payable within 28 days of the date of this parking ticket. A reduced charge of £50.00 is payable if payment is received within 14 days of the date of this parking ticket. If payment is received within 14 days the reduced charge will be accepted in full settlement.

You've not quoted the right bit. Lower down, on the NTK, what does it say about 28 days?