IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
UKPC - SCS Claim form recieved
Options
Comments
-
Coupon-mad wrote: »I am not comfortable with this one, as ''loss'' as an argument just gets battered by PE v Beavis:
I would instead suggest at that point as (c) after the intro sentence 'Accordingly it is denied that':
7.3 the mere handing of a parking pass to the Defendant - with no paperwork mentioning any obligation to display it, nor mention of any charge for various dubious 'contraventions', nor even signposting residents to terms on the sporadic signs - could by any reasonable interpretation bind the tenant to pay £100 that the Defendant knew nothing about.
Then maybe an extra point 8, moving the rest down one (and remove the earlier mention of the CRA and Red hand rule from higher up in the defence), I suggest:
Misleading Omission - breach of the CPUTRs 2008 and the CRA 2015
8. The Defendant avers there was a failure to disclose the commercial intent of the parking pass. Appropriate prominence was not given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the consumer. As a directly relevant analogy, the Defendant was also handed a key fob to enter the site, a front door key and a key to the bin store, all of which can also be interpreted as 'passes' to exercise rights to use the facilities/property, and none of these items 'permitting' use of the site, came with the pitfall or trap of an unexpected penalty.
8.1 The fact there 'were some signs up' does not help the Claimant in this case because they lacked prominence and failed to give 'adequate notice' (POFA 2012 words) of the parking charge itself. Signs are everywhere in shared blocks of flats and one does not expect to be fined for not noticing one unremarkable sign above another. There are signs at the entrance, there are signs at the bin store, and there are various signs on the wall (some of which the Defendant now finds were from UKPC and intended for residents, not just ''unauthorised'' trespassers, as was taken to be the case from the capital letters).
8.2 Communicating any onerous contractual obligation/charge remains at all times within the Claimant's control, and starts at the point of handing over a 'permit' even if they allow third parties (e.g. letting agents) to supply them. It cannot reasonably be argued that a parking charge is somehow 'to be expected' despite the parking pass being handed over to the Defendant in a pile of items and papers, with no penalty/contractual context whatsoever.
8.3 The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 says:
''A 'misleading omission' is a commercial practice that:
- omits material information
- hides material information
- provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or
- fails to identify its commercial intent, unless this is already apparent from the context,
and as a result causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision they would not have taken otherwise.''
8.4 J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3 is an English contract law and English property law case on exclusion clauses and bailment. It is best known for Denning LJ's red hand rule comment where he said:
''I quite agree that the more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it. Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink on the face of the document with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient''.
8.5 It is averred any unexpected penalty foisted upon tenants where the context of one 'pass' over another, was never fairly communicated by the Claimant, fails the tests of transparency and good faith, contrary to the CPUTRS 2008 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
8.6 The doctrine of good faith was explored in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis at the Supreme Court, where it was stated at 35: ''The nature of the duty to act in good faith as described in the Regulations was discussed by Lord Bingham in paragraph 17 of his speech in Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank Plc [2002] 1 A.C. 481...'':
''The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and
open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be
expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed
pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to
terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.
Fair dealing requires that a supplier should not, whether
deliberately or unconsciously, take advantage of the consumer's
necessity, indigence, lack of experience, unfamiliarity with the
subject matter of the contract, weak bargaining position or any
other factor listed in or analogous to those listed in Schedule 2
to the Regulations. Good faith in this context is not an artificial
or technical concept; nor, since Lord Mansfield was its
champion, is it a concept wholly unfamiliar to British lawyers.
It looks to good standards of commercial morality and practice.''
Thank you this is excellent. Just to make sure I am understanding you correctly, when you mention above...Then maybe an extra point 8, moving the rest down one (and remove the earlier mention of the CRA and Red hand rule from higher up in the defence), I suggest:
I wasn't sure what in my defence you were referring to. I didn't mention CRA or red hand in my defence. Were you talking about my points in 6.1.2 where i detail the lack of communication and dating on the passes? Should I remove that point from my preliminary defence entirely in favour of the segment that you just suggested there, appearing in my secondary defence?
Just want to make sure I am understanding you correctly. Thanks for your kind assistance.0 -
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.
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.
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 [number] of named drivers permitted to use it. !!!8220;
3.1 There is more than one driver named on the vehicle's insurance policy, namely the tenant and authorised family/friends who would only ever be legitimately parked at the location, not trespassers. Whilst it is impossible to determine who was driving on one single occasion and the balance of probabilities is not tipped one way or the other, the Defendant firmly believes parking by legitimate tenants/visitors does not constitute "unauthorised parking". This suggests an act of trespass not pleaded by the Claimant, and not able to be recovered from a party not in possession, in any case.
4. At all material times the defendant's car was parked at X in a gated community, not at locations y and z, referred to in the parking charge notices sent to the defendant and in the particulars of claim.
It is denied that the Defendants vehicle has been parked on y or z street on [date] or at all. The court will be provided with an area map and photographs to demonstrate this. The Defendant avers that the Claimants photographic evidence will also confirm this.
5. The Defendant is unable to identify the driver for the [dates]. 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.
Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
6. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the tenancy agreement, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The tenancy agreement contract terms provide the right to use, in common with others, any shared rights of access, stairways, communal parts, paths and drives. Visitor parking spaces are, by definition, communal drives. This is detailed without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit.
6.1 There is no mention on the tenancy agreement of any potential parking charges, or contractual agreements with a private parking company. A copy of the tenancy agreement will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given by both the occupier and leaseholder.
6.1.1 The tenant had been issued with a UKPC guest parking permit which they had received upon moving in to the property from the active property management company in November 2011, containing no expiry date, and having received no correspondence suggesting impending invalidity of said permit. Since the tenancy agreement makes no mention of their existence, these were displayed in good faith in cooperation with other residents and the property management company to demonstrate compliance for peaceful communal living. A copy of the visitor pass will be provided to the Court.
6.1.2 The Defendant and tenant have made contact with both the Claimant and property management via telephone and email to ascertain information on the cycle of issuance of the !!!8220;permits!!!8221;. Since the permits themselves contain no expiry or validity dates, neither have been able to demonstrate a predictable system for the tenants and their visitors to abide to. Such ambiguity would allow for a repeat of this dispute in the future. To avoid this and to narrow the dispute, the Defendant suggests the Claimant provide a clear explanation of their system for provision of these !!!8220;permits!!!8221; for the tenants.
7. The Defendant avers that the operator signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease or tenancy agreement. There is a large body of case law to support this. 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 similar cases should the matter proceed to trial.
7. Accordingly it is denied that:
7.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
7.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
7.3 the mere handing of a parking pass to the Defendant - with no paperwork mentioning any obligation to display it, nor mention of any charge for various dubious 'contraventions', nor even signposting residents to terms on the sporadic signs - could by any reasonable interpretation bind the tenant to pay £100 that the Defendant knew nothing about.
Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
Misleading Omission - breach of the CPUTRs 2008 and the CRA 2015
8. The Defendant avers there was a failure to disclose the commercial intent of the parking pass. Appropriate prominence was not given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the consumer. As a directly relevant analogy, the Defendant was also handed a key fob to enter the site garage, a front door key and a key to the bin store, all of which can also be interpreted as 'passes' to exercise rights to use the facilities/property, and none of these items 'permitting' use of the site, came with the pitfall or trap of an unexpected penalty.
8.1 The fact there 'were some signs up' does not help the Claimant in this case because they lacked prominence and failed to give 'adequate notice' (POFA 2012 words) of the parking charge itself. Signs are everywhere in shared blocks of flats and one does not expect to be fined for not noticing one unremarkable sign above another. There are signs at the entrance, there are signs at the bin store, and there are various signs on the wall (some of which the Defendant now finds were from UKPC and intended for residents, not just ''unauthorised'' trespassers, as was taken to be the case from the capital letters).
8.2 Communicating any onerous contractual obligation/charge remains at all times within the Claimant's control, and starts at the point of handing over a 'permit' even if they allow third parties (e.g. letting agents) to supply them. It cannot reasonably be argued that a parking charge is somehow 'to be expected' despite the parking pass being handed over to the Defendant in a pile of items and papers, with no penalty/contractual context whatsoever.
8.3 The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 says:
''A 'misleading omission' is a commercial practice that:
- omits material information
- hides material information
- provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or
- fails to identify its commercial intent, unless this is already apparent from the context,
and as a result causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision they would not have taken otherwise.''
8.4 J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3 is an English contract law and English property law case on exclusion clauses and bailment. It is best known for Denning LJ's red hand rule comment where he said:
''I quite agree that the more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it. Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink on the face of the document with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient''.
8.5 It is averred any unexpected penalty foisted upon tenants where the context of one 'pass' over another, was never fairly communicated by the Claimant, fails the tests of transparency and good faith, contrary to the CPUTRS 2008 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
8.6 The doctrine of good faith was explored in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis at the Supreme Court, where it was stated at 35: ''The nature of the duty to act in good faith as described in the Regulations was discussed by Lord Bingham in paragraph 17 of his speech in Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank Plc [2002] 1 A.C. 481...'':
''The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and
open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be
expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed
pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to
terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.
Fair dealing requires that a supplier should not, whether
deliberately or unconsciously, take advantage of the consumer's
necessity, indigence, lack of experience, unfamiliarity with the
subject matter of the contract, weak bargaining position or any
other factor listed in or analogous to those listed in Schedule 2
to the Regulations. Good faith in this context is not an artificial
or technical concept; nor, since Lord Mansfield was its
champion, is it a concept wholly unfamiliar to British lawyers.
It looks to good standards of commercial morality and practice.''
8.7 In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, in so far 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 throughout the site.
8.8 The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
8.8.1 At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation. Signage on site is not clearly legible or visible from the bays marked as visitor parking. One of the two nearest signs is mounted on the side of a neighbouring apartment block, in excess of 8 feet above ground level, parallel with the first floor apartments. Another parallel to this, completely broken with no visible text. Clear photographic evidence will be provided to the court.
8.8.2 The largest wording present on the signage states !!!8220;NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING!!!8221;. This signage is forbidding, and does not constitute an offer of a contract. The defendant will rely on the judgements of DDJ Ellington in UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016].
8.3 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. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.
9. 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.
10. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.
11. 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.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.
This is the amended version including all of Coupon_mad's suggestions. Still needs a bit of trimming I guess? Have been trying to squeeze this in around work. Heads spinning a little. Please let me know if there is something disadvantageous or messy that needs a trim.0 -
Just needs these to be one number higher, 9 onwards, and move the heading to here:Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
8.7 In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, in so far 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 throughout the site.
8.8 The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
8.8.1 At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation. Signage on site is not clearly legible or visible from the bays marked as visitor parking. One of the two nearest signs is mounted on the side of a neighbouring apartment block, in excess of 8 feet above ground level, parallel with the first floor apartments. Another parallel to this, completely broken with no visible text. Clear photographic evidence will be provided to the court.
8.8.2 The largest wording present on the signage states !!!8220;NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING!!!8221;. This signage is forbidding, and does not constitute an offer of a contract. The defendant will rely on the judgements of DDJ Ellington in UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016].
8.3 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. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye v Beavis distinguished.
9. 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.
10. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.
11. 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.
Looks fairly long but it says everything you need to say. Your final point will now be #12.
PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
So i just spoke to the County Court Business centre due to confusion over a service date. I asked her to clarify when i send it.
She said to me I should post it now, not email it, along with any evidence, photos, tenancy agreements, correspondence with UKPC, NtK's, all of it. She said her personal opinion is that when receiving a case they will want as much information as possible up front.
I wanted to run this by you guys as it contradicts a lot of what this forum says. Its a huge amount of extra work, and I am reluctant to chuck a huge bundle of evidence at them without proper reference points, which would be in the witness statement surely.
Can someone advise me on how to approach this as shes created a bit of doubt.0 -
IF yo uare simply filing your defence with the CCBC, then you ONLY send yoru defence. NO evidence. It will not go anywehere and probably just binned.
The person on the end was a muppet.
Of course if you are sending this to the local court, then you have already sent yoru defence and will not be sending it again.0 -
Yep, a clueless muppet.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
So I emailed the defence to the court. PDF format. Attached with claim number in subject line.
In the newbie guide it says a copy goes to the defence. Is it me who has to send that? If so I'd need to send it pretty urgently as according to MCOL service date gives until tomorrow as the 28th day.
Thanks0 -
Nevermind. I got it!0
-
Whilst I am waiting to hear back on the claim case, I dealt with the 3 most recent tickets by sending a slightly edited version of the template letter, also mentioning an extra line about displaying permits that are undated. below i have attached the response letter.
It seems to me the best response would be "due to multiple named drivers, one of which being the tenant, I am unable to name the driver. I have attached scans of all valid guest passes including the guest pass I have been displaying in my own car, and the pass of the tenant who permits me to use it. Please accept this of absolute evidence that I am not parking without authorisation, or in abuse of the visitor parking."
It also seems to me that if they do go ahead and cancel on receipt of these permits, surely the completely identical court claim would fall apart?0 -
My response to that letter would be to ignore it and wait patiently for a PoPLA code.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards