Parking Charge Notice in work car park

Quentin

that_girl wrote: »

that's it? i just need to type out international parking community instead of using an acronym?

You could do either

Use the acronym or use the (correct) name in full!

that_girl

You could do either

Use the acronym or use the (correct) name in full!

that's fine, i just had no idea you were referring to paragraph 5. was there anything else you think i needed to amend?

that_girl

i've recently been made aware that if the PCN is delivered by post, then this must arrive within 14 days from when the parking period ended. all of my PCN's that they are making a claim on were delivered more than 14 days after the contravention date.

would i be able to defend myself at this stage simply by stating that they did not comply with POFA 2012 section 9 (4), to deliver the notice within the relevant period of 14 days? And although i did not respond to the PCN in the 28 days that i was given, as they did not adhere to the strict conditions stipulated in the Act, that they can not pursue the PCN's therefore deeming the PCN's as void?

i must also point out that there were multiple PCN's issued. when i received my SARS information i reviewed all of them. some of them i appealed and won, 1 of them i appealed and it was rejected, and some of them were ignored - out of the ignored ones, there are a few that they are making a claim on. on the ones that i appealed i said i was the driver, however in the ones that they are claiming on, i am only known as the keeper.

if i were to defend myself by using the 14 day rule, and that there is no legal requirement to identify the driver, would that defense stack up as they won't be able to refer to any other PCN's which are not included in the claim?

Redx

If the PPC failed pofa then a Keeper defence is usual because pofa protects the keeper if a PPC failed those paragraph sections, so yes

But not for an admitted driver, so bear in mind the difference

that_girl

Thanks Redx

If i am not the admitted driver in the particular PCN's that the claim refers to, but this has been admitted in other PCN's in the same car park where my appeal was either successful or rejected, would they be able to use this against me if i submitted the above defence, or are they not allowed to refer to this as it's separate from the PCN's that they are making a claim on?

nosferatu1001

As youve been told on pepipoo, if theyre even slightly bright they will adduce the evidence to court that you HAD driven the car on other occasions, and so the balance of probabilties sugegsts you may have driven on these occasions too.

So you would want some proof you werent the driver - or to show that multiple other drivers could have driven and did use that location - to tip it back.

that_girl

makes sense but annoying!

would the below defence be satisfactory?

Dear sirs,

I am the keeper of vehicle VRM xxxxxx and have received your county court claim xxxx

You have failed to comply with the requirements of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, section 9 (4), failing to deliver the notice within the relevant period of 14 days.

As the strict directions of the Act have not been adhered to, the claim for the parking charge notices must be dismissed in its entirety.

I do not expect to hear from you again other than to confirm that no further action will be taken on this matter and my details have been removed from your records

nosferatu1001

No. Have you read post 2 of the newbies thread, to even understand how a defence is formatted?

That isnt a defence, it reads more like an appeal.

Newbies thread, post 2. If youre writing a defence you need a defence, NOT an appeal.

that_girl

i haven't confused the defence with appeal. the first thing i did when i was given the above template elsewhere was question if this would be accepted at this stage as it looks more like an appeal than a defence, but i hadn't had a response so thanks for clarifying.

i posted my defence in #17 but the only feedback i got was for the incorrect wording when using an acronym in full. if you could help me on the below defence i would really appreciate it.

i've amended paragraph 2 slightly;

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

******(Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle registration number xxxxxx on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. It is denied that any 'parking charges’ are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety. The claimant has failed to show locus standi, the defendant does not believe they have a right to bring an action against anyone. The Claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, section 9 (4), failing to deliver the notice within the relevant period of 14 days.

3. Accordingly, it is denied that the driver breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct as no enforceable contract offered at the time by claimant, no cause for action can have arisen.

4. The Claimant also stated in the Particulars of Claim that the claim is for ‘breaching terms and conditions in operation at the car park/ private land’. However, the claimant has failed to provide evidence of that agreement.

5. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event hence incapable of binding the driver as the claimant failed to comply with International Parking Community Code of Practice ‘PART E Schedule 1 – Signage’.

6. Photos obtained following a subject access request to the claimant show zero evidence of signage pertaining to the restrictions and regulations of parking on the Landowners property. A photo of a map does not constitute a contractual agreement. Given this lack of clarity regarding how or where an employee is to park, no contract can be construed from the Claimant’s signage, under the contra proferentem principle.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary 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, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

8. Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
- CPR 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.

9. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly 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.

10. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

11. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated staff.

12. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

13. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:

The judges stated, ''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

14. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

15. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

16. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

Statement of Truth:
I confirm that the contents of this defence are true to the best of my knowledge.

that_girl

Hello. I posted my defence last month and i've received a letter from BW legal that 3d parking are still going ahead with the claim and they have told the court the same. I haven;t received any Directions Questionnaire yet? Do I need to do anything or just wait for this to arrive?