LINK PARKING - 'County Court Claim Form' Received

Coupon-mad

OK so the NTK was posted in time, BUT despite meeting the deadline (big deal), it still has no statutory 'date sent' on it, as a fact. So if it were me I would not imply who was driving, and would use the POFA as well as the sparse signage/opposite side of the carriageway argument.

You might be able to find something (Highway Code?) that supports the assertion that signs over the other side of the road NEVER apply, because in real life/on public highway, they never do. So any ordinary driver would know that, and the road was unmarked so the driver was correct to park there.

Hope you have photos for the WS stage (photos do not go with the defence, nothing does).

jaran92

Yes I do have plenty of photos. They clearly show that there is no signs at all where the car is parked and you can see the tiny signs on the opposite side of the road attached to a lamppost but totally unreadable.

I'm drafting a new version now. Just going back to the Pre-Action Protocols angle - having looked at the guidelines it does state that they should:

(b) do one of the following !!!8211;
(i) enclose an up-to-date statement of account for the debt, which should include details of any interest and administrative or other charges added;
(ii) enclose the most recent statement of account for the debt and state in the Letter of Claim the amount of interest incurred and any administrative or other charges imposed since that statement of account was issued, sufficient to bring it up to date; or
(iii) where no statements have been provided for the debt, state in the Letter of Claim the amount of interest incurred and any administrative or other charges imposed since the debt was incurred;
enclose a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form at Annex 1 to this Protocol; and
enclose a Financial Statement form (an example Financial Statement is provided in Annex 2 to this protocol).
(c) enclose a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form at Annex 1 to this Protocol; and
(d) enclose a Financial Statement form (an example Financial Statement is provided in Annex 2 to this protocol).

Of which they did none... Also, the Claim Form is asking for £238.09 of which they've added interest, the court fee and Legal representatives costs on top of the original £160 which is what they have set out in the letter before claim.

jaran92

With the above in mind for now - I've started on that route of a defence. Think theres still potential to put in some more clarification and evidence that can help me. Also need to look into the Highway Code a bit further to see if anything else there can help me.

See below:

Defence

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: ___

Between:

Link Parking Limited v ___

Preliminary
1. The particulars of claim are frankly embarrassing, do not provide enough details to file a full defence and are not clear and concise as required by CPR 16.4 1(a). Furthermore, they do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.
1.1. The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic so-called !!!8216;robo-claims!!!8217; similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims.
1.2. 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 un-evidenced 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 latest pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.

3. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1.

Background
4. It is admitted that at the time of the alleged infringement the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark ****** which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle was insured with two named drivers permitted to use it.
4.1. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
4.2. 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 keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")

5. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the !!!8216;parking charge!!!8217; has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated from £100 to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
5.1. 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.
5.2. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

Failure to set out clear parking terms
6. To outline, as can be shown in photo evidence, the driver in question parked on an unmarked section of road outside a place of residence while in the area with work. The side of the road the vehicle was parked on has no signage and as such, not being from the area and with no information to the contrary, the driver parked in this area.

7. Therefore, through photo evidence it can be proved that the parking signage in this matter was woefully inadequate. Signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation. As such, this parking charge is not enforceable as per the POFA guidelines.

8. The only signage that can be seen is on the opposite side of the road to where the vehicle was parked. The claimant cannot reasonably expect a driver to believe that signs on the other side of the road in a residential area, with no lines or other indications on the road where the vehicle was parked, is enforceable.
8.1. The Highway Code, Section 2 (239) states that motorists should !!!8220;Use off-street parking areas, or bays marked out with white lines on the road as parking places, wherever possible.!!!8221; Without adequate signage otherwise, how can a driver reasonably be expected to pay a charge from a Private Company?

Non-compliant correspondence
9. The Defendant received a !!!8216;Notice to Keeper!!!8217; in relation to this charge dated the 26th December 2017. There is no way that the Claimant can reasonably expect it to be believed that this letter was sent on Boxing Day. Therefore, the NTK is not compliant with POFA Paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 because it fails to communicate the date of sending.

10. The letter before claim is not compliant with the latest Pre-Action Protocol Clause 3.1 which states the creditor should:
!!!8220;(b) do one of the following -
(i) enclose an up-to-date statement of account for the debt, which should include details of any interest and administrative or other charges added;
(ii) enclose the most recent statement of account for the debt and state in the Letter of Claim the amount of interest incurred and any administrative or other charges imposed since that statement of account was issued, sufficient to bring it up to date; or
(iii) where no statements have been provided for the debt, state in the Letter of Claim the amount of interest incurred and any administrative or other charges imposed since the debt was incurred;
enclose a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form at Annex 1 to this Protocol; and
enclose a Financial Statement form (an example Financial Statement is provided in Annex 2 to this protocol).
(c) enclose a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form at Annex 1 to this Protocol; and
(d) enclose a Financial Statement form (an example Financial Statement is provided in Annex 2 to this protocol).!!!8221;
None of the above were included with the letter before claim received and as such the Defendant cannot be expected to see it as a legitimate reason for a response.

11. The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a recovery agent adding a further £60 of unexplained charges with no evidence of how they have been calculated.
No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified by clear signage. Terms cannot be added with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.
11.1. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 !!!8220;legal representative costs!!!8221; to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
11.2. The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal representative!!!8217;s costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.
11.3. The above, as well as the £3.09 interest outlined in the claim was not included in the Letter Before Claim document and therefore should not have been added.

Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim
12. 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).

13. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive monetary demand against motorists, alleging 'debts' for parking on unmarked areas of residential land is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

14. The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors Gladstones 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).

15. 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.

16. 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.

Name:

Signed:

Date:

nosferatu1001

The Highway Code will not gave anything about signs for Parking , stopping etc. Look in the TMA2004 which should tell,you eg parking signs only apply on one side of the road.

System

Oops sorry - First Parking are the firm at where I used to work! Link Parking is the company in question.

I think you should use that in support of your evidence. You are not an average Joe but someone that would have been aware of the requirements to convey the restrictions. You can talk authoritatively about Codes of Practice and the need to have clear signs and coherent rules communicated effectively.

Your own words will be far more effective than a template.

Coupon-mad

Doesn't the OP mean that F1rst were the PPC at the car park where they used to work, not that they worked for them?

jaran92

Yes - they were the PPC at where I used to work. I did not work for them personally.

Sorry - I've gone quiet, been mega busy! Working more on my response now. Does anyone have any more thoughts on what I posted above?

jaran92

Okay so: I'm not seeing any real guidance on signage legislation - but my latest version can be seen below. Do you all think I'm covering the right points enough there or is there anything more I should be saying at this stage?
Thanks!

Defence

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: ___

Between:

Link Parking Limited v ___

Preliminary
1. The particulars of claim are frankly embarrassing, do not provide enough details to file a full defence and are not clear and concise as required by CPR 16.4 1(a). Furthermore, they do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.
1.1. The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic so-called !!!8216;robo-claims!!!8217; similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims.
1.2. 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 un-evidenced 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 latest pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.

3. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1.

Background
4. It is admitted that at the time of the alleged infringement the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark ****** which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle was insured with two named drivers permitted to use it.
4.1. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
4.2. 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 keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")

5. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the !!!8216;parking charge!!!8217; has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated from £100 to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
5.1. 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.
5.2. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

Failure to set out clear parking terms
6. To outline, as can be shown in photo evidence, the driver in question parked on an unmarked section of road outside a place of residence while in the area with work. The side of the road the vehicle was parked on has no signage and as such, not being from the area and with no information to the contrary, the driver parked in this area.

7. Therefore, through photo evidence it can be proved that the parking signage in this matter was woefully inadequate. Signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation. As such, this parking charge is not enforceable as per the POFA guidelines.

8. The only signage that can be seen is on the opposite side of the road to where the vehicle was parked. The claimant cannot reasonably expect a driver to believe that signs on the other side of the road in a residential area, with no lines or other indications on the road where the vehicle was parked, is enforceable.
8.1. The Highway Code, Section 2 (239) states that motorists should !!!8220;Use off-street parking areas, or bays marked out with white lines on the road as parking places, wherever possible.!!!8221; Without adequate signage otherwise, how can a driver reasonably be expected to pay a charge from a Private Company?
9. There were no visible markings on the road which would suggest a restriction to parking there. This combined with the lack of signage cannot surely mean that this charge can be seen as enforceable.

Non-compliant correspondence
10. The Defendant received a !!!8216;Notice to Keeper!!!8217; in relation to this charge dated the 26th December 2017. There is no way that the Claimant can reasonably expect it to be believed that this letter was sent on Boxing Day. Therefore, the NTK is not compliant with POFA Paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 because it fails to communicate the date of sending.

11. The letter before claim is not compliant with the latest Pre-Action Protocol Clause 3.1 which states the creditor should:
!!!8220;(b) do one of the following -
(i) enclose an up-to-date statement of account for the debt, which should include details of any interest and administrative or other charges added;
(ii) enclose the most recent statement of account for the debt and state in the Letter of Claim the amount of interest incurred and any administrative or other charges imposed since that statement of account was issued, sufficient to bring it up to date; or
(iii) where no statements have been provided for the debt, state in the Letter of Claim the amount of interest incurred and any administrative or other charges imposed since the debt was incurred;
enclose a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form at Annex 1 to this Protocol; and
enclose a Financial Statement form (an example Financial Statement is provided in Annex 2 to this protocol).
(c) enclose a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form at Annex 1 to this Protocol; and
(d) enclose a Financial Statement form (an example Financial Statement is provided in Annex 2 to this protocol).!!!8221;
None of the above were included with the letter before claim received and as such the Defendant cannot be expected to see it as a legitimate reason for a response.

12. The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a recovery agent adding a further £60 of unexplained charges with no evidence of how they have been calculated.
No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified by clear signage. Terms cannot be added with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.
12.1. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 !!!8220;legal representative costs!!!8221; to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
12.2. The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal representative!!!8217;s costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.
12.3. The above, as well as the £3.09 interest outlined in the claim was not included in the Letter Before Claim document and therefore should not have been added.

Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim
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 monetary demand against motorists, alleging 'debts' for parking on unmarked areas of residential land 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 Gladstones 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.

Name:

Signed:

Date:

nosferatu1001

Private parking has no legislation regarding signage, just a potential require,ent for advertising consent.

I pointed you to the tma2004, which sets out the signage which must be in place. Tsgrd2016 is your other resource.
Instead of saying you got no help, tell us what happened when you looked in those locations?

jaran92

I didn't say nobody helped - I meant there was no specific guidance IN the TMA. I read through it.
So - what I'm getting at is that I've already mentioned there wasn't adequate signage so there is not really much else in regard to specifics about being on the other side of the road I can mention...
I will also look at Tsgrd2016.

I am simply asking if there is anything else I should mention.