Parking Charge Notice - myparkingcharge.co.uk

Le_Kirk

Looks OK as is.  did the claimant add additional costs (for example £60 as debt admin) to the claim?  If so, there is some ammunition for the defence to be added, see abuse of process thread by beamerguy or read threads (discussions) by CEC16, basher52 or jellybelly23.  You have put the claimant to strict proof of landowner authority and you would expect that contract to be provided by the PPC in court as part of its witness statement (WS) and evidence.  It is unlikely that you will get it before then.  If it is not in the claimants WS and evidence then you are able to ask the judge about it.

Plantlover66

Le_Kirk said:

Looks OK as is.  did the claimant add additional costs (for example £60 as debt admin) to the claim?  If so, there is some ammunition for the defence to be added, see abuse of process thread by beamerguy or read threads (discussions) by CEC16, basher52 or jellybelly23.  You have put the claimant to strict proof of landowner authority and you would expect that contract to be provided by the PPC in court as part of its witness statement (WS) and evidence.  It is unlikely that you will get it before then.  If it is not in the claimants WS and evidence then you are able to ask the judge about it.

Amazing, thanks for your help Le Kirk. They did in fact add a £60 debt onto the claim as well as legal costs which I expected. I believe the claim currently totals around £235 up from the original £100, would have to double check claim form though. Will be sure to check out the suggested posts and adjust my defence accordingly. 

D_P_Dance

deleted

Le_Kirk

They did in fact add a £60 debt onto the claim as well as legal costs which I expected.

Yes, legal costs are allowed - up to a point.  Check out the CPR for the actual amounts allowed.

Plantlover66

Thanks for directing me to the 'abuse of process' thread @Le_Kirk  it really helped me to push the point about the fake costs they added onto the £100. Here's a final look at my defence, which I'm about to email now. 

EDIT: Sorry not sure what's happened to the numbers, but this is showing correctly on my word document. 

DEFENCE

Claim No: XXXXXXX

Claimant: Vehicle Control Services Ltd 

Defendant: Miss XXXXXXXX

 

1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the incident on the 22nd December 2017.  
   
   
2. The claim relates to an alleged debt which has come about due to an alleged breach of contract set on private land within the Crown Street Car Park, Leeds. The Claimant is accusing the defendant of parking without a valid ticket.
   
   
3. A valid ‘pay & display’ ticket was purchased and displayed on the dashboard of the vehicle covering all time spent within the car park on the above date.
   
   
4. There was no overstay nor any mischief to deter, nor was there any misuse of a valuable parking space by the Driver, whose car was parked in good faith, not in contravention nor causing an obstruction, and was certainly not 'unauthorised'.

 

1. The particulars of claim state that the driver of the vehicle parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage. 
   
   
2. It is denied that the Claimant’s signage sets out the terms and conditions in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. 
   
   
3. There is no clear signage displayed within the arches where the defendant was parked and supposedly breached the claimant’s terms. Signage within the car park was not situated adequately and was of a height that could not be viewed from a small passing vehicle such as the defendant’s, especially since the contractual terms were set out in an inadequate and tiny font. 

 

1. Signage within the car park has been amended since the date of the incident and currently states that the private land where the Defendant allegedly breached the terms and conditions is now being used as ‘extra spaces’ for ‘valid pay & display ticket holders’ as well as ‘permit holders’.

 

1. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that this must have been the landowner's intention for that area all along; thus there is an absence of the compelling commercial justification and/or legitimate interest that saved the parking charge in the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67, for being struck out as offending against the penalty rule.

 

1. Even if the Claimant is able to show that the above contention was not the case, the claim still fails because the signs and lines were not prominent and transparent enough to show drivers that certain bays were apparently not 'pay & display' within this (advertised on the entrance signs and other notices) primarily pay & display car park. The doctrine of contra proferentem applies and the interpretation of badly marked bays which most favours the consumer must prevail, and under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 this means that these bay markings (or lack of) would be interpreted as unfair 'terms' and/or 'notices’.

 

1. No authority from the landowner to the Claimant has been sent to the Defendant confirming the legality of the claim and charges. In the absence of strict proof of the landowner’s authority I submit that the Claimant has no grounds for a case at all and invite the court to strike out the claim.

 

1. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation. 

 

1. The Defendant strongly believes that the claim contains multiple substantial charges, additional to the parking charge, which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay. The additional £60 charge, is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 (5), which states the maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper is the amount specified in the notice to keeper.

 

1. Furthermore, the Civil Procedure Rules 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –

(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and

(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

 

1. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) the Defendant does not believe that the Claimant has incurred any legal costs. Given the fact that BW Legal boasted in Bagri v BW Legal Ltd of processing 'millions' of claims with an admin team (and only a handful of solicitors), the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste PPS robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities.

 

1. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are most definitely disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

 

1. Furthermore, with no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant's claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail.

 

1. Considering all of the statements above, I therefore respectfully ask the court to dismiss all action against the defendant and strike out the claim of its own initiative, using it’s case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.
   
   I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
   Name
   Signature
   17/02/2020

 

 

1505grandad

"..................... the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste PPS robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities."

Who are PPS?

Le_Kirk

1505grandad said:

"..................... the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste PPS robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities."
Who are PPS?

PPC maybe.  OP, you need to spell out the acronym first time it is used, therefore Private Parking Company (PPC) if indeed that is what you meant.

nosferatu1001

OP - if youre an outed driver, just state it explicitly. Makes it clear everything comes from your direct, first hand knowledge
I know its private land. What REASON did they give for issuing? Overstay? Parked out of a line? What? Because I dont know, and the court wont know eother. Makes it hard to defend an underlying claim if you dont even say what that is...
Legal costs -theyre allowed to claim£50 TO FILE THE CLAIM. THat is in its OWN box out. Nothing more in terms of legal costs. 

Plantlover66

Le_Kirk said:

1505grandad said:

"..................... the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste PPS robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities."
Who are PPS?

PPC maybe.  OP, you need to spell out the acronym first time it is used, therefore Private Parking Company (PPC) if indeed that is what you meant.

nosferatu1001 said:

OP - if youre an outed driver, just state it explicitly. Makes it clear everything comes from your direct, first hand knowledge
I know its private land. What REASON did they give for issuing? Overstay? Parked out of a line? What? Because I dont know, and the court wont know eother. Makes it hard to defend an underlying claim if you dont even say what that is...
Legal costs -theyre allowed to claim£50 TO FILE THE CLAIM. THat is in its OWN box out. Nothing more in terms of legal costs. 

Thank you both, unfortunately, I signed, dated and emailed the defence yesterday and it states on MCOL that they've received. Is it worth me amending and advising them that I'm sending an updated defence through now?? Wish I'd waited now but started to panic as the date was nearing. 

Castle

Plantlover66 said:

Thank you both, unfortunately, I signed, dated and emailed the defence yesterday and it states on MCOL that they've received. Is it worth me amending and advising them that I'm sending an updated defence through now?? Wish I'd waited now but started to panic as the date was nearing. 

No...not unless you want to spend £255 to change your defence.