SCS for parking with permit!

Potatini

Hi all,
as expected I received the "court action pack"on 11/7.
I've done the online submissions timely and worked (for way too long) on some form of defence letter, which I aim in sending this out ASAP, previous your kind review. There is so much to put light on. I think that probably all my points should be expanded or backed by relevant laws or reference to previous cases, but despite extensive reading I could't find pertinent highlights about PCNs in a gated area accessible only to permit holders.
I have a nice set of appendixes that I'm tidying up to attach.

Please, could you have a read to the below statement of defence and give me your opinion?
In particular, can you think of anything strong to reinforce point n. 5 and 6?
Should I add a paragraph asking the court to consider my time costs money too and I may decide to claim for it with the Claimant?
I have left some comments for you in capital letters for clarity. And sorry for the formatting. It looks so much better in MS Word!
Thank you so much for the time to read. It's so reassuring to know there is a strong and knowledgeable community to back me in this difficult one :money:

I am xx defendant in this matter and an unrepresented, honest consumer with no experience of Court procedure.
Should I not present my case as professionally as the Claimant, I trust that the Court excuses my inexperience and reserves any criticism for the extremely sparse particulars filed by the Claimant’s Solicitors.


I, the Defendant, deny liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reason.


1. This claim refers to parking incidents within the gated staff car park at St. Peter's Hospital Trust in Chertsey and involves the defendant's authorised vehicle.
1.1 The Trust issues annual parking permits to authorised members of staff only. Permits are available for purchase by the member of staff through a portal. (attachment N. XX)
1.2 The permit is registered in a system and linked to one vehicle's registration number.
1.3 Weekly scratch cards should accompany the permit and they are to be purchased by the member of staff as required and displayed together with the valid permit.
1.4 Any member of staff who has obtained a permit would be able to swipe-open the barrier, on board of any vehicle.
1.5 The staff car park in question has a security gate which can be opened only by authorised members of staff who can swipe their enabled badge to open the barrier. In this case, it is my belief as registered keeper that the car was parked inside the premise with permission of the landowner, in the form of the above permit.
1.6 As the registration no. of the permit holder is registered with the Trust, besides being stated on the signage, the defendant's vehicle does not necessarily need to display the permit and any permit is displayed purely for the convenience of their so called “traffic wardens”.
1.7 To my knowledge, the permit has been always displayed in the car correctly. It was not applied to the windscreen immediately, as the vehicle was purchased in late December 2016 and monitored for potential defects until the beginning of March. When not on the windscreen, the permit was placed on the dashboard, together with the scratch card, in a very visible place. I will expand this topic furthermore at point 9.
1.8 In addition to this, permits do not guarantee a parking space will be available in the hospital staff car parks and I am aware of members of staff receiving so called “penalty charges” for squeezing an extra car in a gravel car park or for parking on the bay's line in order to attend work. It is deplorable that the operators are aware of the scarce parking and penalise staff, even when they are not causing any nuisance.
1.9 Hospital staff car parks can not be regarded by the parking Company as designated patient car parks, nor as leisure parking facility, as those are necessary to Hospital staff, for them to serve their purpose to the community.

2 The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors are speculative serial litigants, engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing thousands of totally meritless Claims, that are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centres in all parts of England & Wales.
2.1 The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against motorists, alleging 'debts' for parking on Hospital staff car parking areas is not something the Courts should be seen to support.
2.2 The badly mail-merged documents initially produced by the Claimant contained very little information and obtaining “evidences” about the claim has proved challenging, upsetting and time consuming.
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).

3 It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper and was so at the time of the incidents. However, that does not deem the keeper liable as the Claimant has not identified the driver and would therefore need to adhere to the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to hold the Defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach. (IS THIS STILL RELEVANT?Needs expanding?)
3.1 Due to the length of time, the Defendant has little to no recollection of the days in question. It would not be reasonable to expect a registered keeper to be able to recall the potential driver(s) of the vehicle up to 18 months later (SHOULD I WRITE THIS OR IRRELEVANT).

4 The Defendant would like to highlight that they didn't receive any correspondence related to the claims, prior to the LBC dated 22 Februay 2018, which was unexpected and source of great concern.
4.1 Upon written request of he Defendant dated 16 March 2018 (as shown in attachment N. XX), the claimant's solicitors have provided copies of a rather intimidating trail of letters, that are claimed to have supposedly been sent to the same address of Grove House, Osmington, Weymouth but never received.
4.2 Had correspondence of this nature been received, it would have been acted on appropriately and timely.
4.3 The copies of the letters provided initially showed the claimant as a sender, followed by harsher DRP and finally signed by SCS Law. The escalating threatening tone of the letters was clearly designed to intimidate the recipient.
4.4 The Defendant feels that the way the Claimant's solicitor have illustrated potential enforcement actions, such as “instructing (...) High Court Enforcement Officer to attend your address and remove goods” or “applying for an Attachment of earning Order” are a deliberate threat to intimidate the Defendant.

5 The claim correspondence related to 4 out of 5 occurrences was on CP Plus headed paper and followed by DRP debt collection letters, while the PCN dated 13 February 2018 only was ion PCS (not CP Plus) headed letter, whilst still maintaining the identical format and contact telephone number of the previous CP Plus letters. Only the logo was replaced.
Also, the following debt collection was operated not only by DRP, but also by Zenith Collections, as a “final warning of legal action”.
5.1 This change of logo is very confusing and misleading.
5.2 The Defendant would like explanation about the apparent change in management at the time of issue of PCN dated 13 February 2018, as none was ever provided, nor highlighted with additional temporary signage or letter to the permit holders.
5.3 The 5 occurrences took place within the boundaries of the same staff car park and there was no evident notice of “change in jurisdiction”. The third PCN dated 13 February 2018 is no exception.

6 The sudden upcoming of this situation involving me as a keeper of the vehicle, caused me a considerable amount of distress, to the point that it led to a nervous breakdown, when I was already off work for delicate health reasons. (EXPAND??)

7 Upon analysis, the LBC dated 22 February 2018 was lacking of the necessary information (UNDER POFA ??) to identify the nature of the claims and their background, such as:
7.1 Full particulars of the parking charges
7.2 Reason why no preliminary correspondence was sent
7.3 The full legal identity of the landowner who contracted CP Plus
7.4 A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that CP Plus have their authority in pursuing the Defendant.
7.5 Photographic evidences to represent the position of the vehicle and signage in relation to each occurrence.
7.6 To provide a copy of the signs that can constitute evidence that those were actually on site at the time of the alleged occurrences and formed a contract with the driver.
The Defendant wrote to the Claimant requesting the above information on 16 March 2018.


8 The photographic evidence provided are not exhaustively depicting the alleged breach, nor are compliant with the BPA Code of Practice
8.1 The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:
8.1.1 “When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.”
8.1.2 The so-called parking charge notice in question contains two photographs of the vehicle:
8.1.3 Neither of these images identify the vehicle entering or leaving the car park. The photos are of poor quality showing only the registration number with some clarity. There’s no evidence in the photos of the vehicle entering or leaving a car park. There’s no evidence in the photos showing the location of the car due to lack of any marker or sign to relate these photos to the location stated.
8.2 As from point 9.1.3, none of the photographs show that the vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way See photographs n. XX, XX, XX.
8.3 The photos provided as evidence fail to identify where in the car park was the vehicle, to the extent that, even having worked at the Hospital I cannot determine for certain where the car has been captured in the attached photographs.
8.4 Also they fail to contextualise the signage with the position of the vehicle, despite being obviously a necessary proof of the alleged claim, is inexcusable omission. (See photographs)
8.5 The attached picture n. xx represents a close-up of a sign with no representation location
8.6 Further explanation is needed in regards to the alleged statement: “parking outside of designated bays”, when lines are visible in the attached photograph n. XX.
8.7 In regards to point 9.4, I'd like this Court to take not of the poor state of maintenance of the marking lines within the entire car park (not to speak of other tarmac or structural maintenance issues). Some old lines are still visible, some have faded or are partially canceled, other ones have been DYI-painted with dark paint, but are still visible. It's unequivocal that this is a cause of confusion.
8.8 Failing to take any relevant photos of the car, particularly the full extent of windscreen and dashboard invalidates the claim, as the required documentation was present, but not made visible by the angle the operator photographed the car at.

9 Signage
9.1 In the absence of any proof of adequate signage contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case
9.2 The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
9.3 No contract is offered to anyone who lacks a voucher or permit. it would seem that the driver was actually authorised to park by virtue of the payments and therefore there has been no breach.
9.4 The only clear large lettering was 'NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING' and it is submitted that the presence of the vehicle was certainly not 'unauthorised'. In fact, the vehicle was authorised by the permit issued in virtue of the owner's contract of employment with the Trust

10 It is still to be cleared :
10.1 If the charges were based on damages for breach of contract and, if so, to provide justification of this sum
10.2 If the additional charge was based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking and, if so, to provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.

11 Similar court cases
11.1 (ANY CASES KNOWN TO YOU TO BACK THIS UP???)

12 I request the court strikes out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.
These are some of the comments made by the MPs in Parliament concerning the unregulated parking industry (Feb 2018): https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill “Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; unfair treatment; signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued; ''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; bloodsuckers; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; extortionate fines; rogue operators; ''sense of injustice''; unfair charges and notices; willfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; unreasonable; a curse; harassing; operating in a disgusting way; appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing; loathed; outrageous scam; dodgy practice; outrageous abuse; unscrupulous practices; ''the British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-store car park in the Gobi desert''; and finally, by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.
These are the exact words used, so please excuse the colorful vocabulary. As recommended by Sir Greg Knight MP, he'll be available to provide further information about this statement.

KeithP

What is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?

Have you done the Acknowledgement of Service?
If so, when?

That Defence seems to read more like a Witness Statement in places.
It also mentions an attachment and photographs.

I have a nice set of appendixes that I'm tidying up to attach.

Nothing should be attached to a Defence.
Save all that for your Witness Statement and evidence.

Potatini

Hi,
as mentioned on the top, the date of issue is 11/7.
I've completed the acknowledgement of service the week after.
To be very honest, I don't know how to differentiate the statement by the defence...any hint?
Thank you

[Deleted User]

!!!8220;

I am xx defendant in this matter and an unrepresented, honest consumer with no experience of Court procedure.
Should I not present my case as professionally as the Claimant, I trust that the Court excuses my inexperience and reserves any criticism for the extremely sparse particulars filed by the Claimant!!!8217;s Solicitors.

This guff needs to go from ALL templates.

1. The claimant's particulars are rarely any good
2. The court knows you are a LiP - that's the point of the small claims procedure
3. The judicial college issues guidance to judges re LiPs (you get latitude regarding procedures but not carte blanche to miss deadlines and the like)
4. It makes the assumption as to what the court should do/tells the court what to do. NEVER do that.

[Deleted User]

I am xx defendant in this matter and an unrepresented, honest consumer with no experience of Court procedure.
Should I not present my case as professionally as the Claimant, I trust that the Court excuses my inexperience and reserves any criticism for the extremely sparse particulars filed by the Claimant's Solicitors.

This guff needs to go from ALL templates.

1. The claimant's particulars are rarely any good
2. The court knows you are a LiP - that's the point of the small claims procedure
3. The judicial college issues guidance to judges re LiPs (you get latitude regarding procedures but not carte blanche to miss deadlines and the like)
4. It makes the assumption as to what the court should do/tells the court what to do. NEVER do that.

There is some really good stuff in that defence but it is being drowned by generic guff. I include the lengthy diatribe about parking and Hansard in that. Alright you're hacked off, but the court will only ever apply the law (not what MPs might want it to be in the future). May as well take it out.

On balance of probabilities if you (the keeper) are the only employee of the trust who is also insured on the car, the DJ has enough to find that you're the driver. I may well be inclined to admit that, drop the clever POFA stuff and say "I paid, in fact, I displayed, there is no loss, no prejudice and I was parked within the rules" if that will be your case. Your later witness statement will be more powerful and you can ask for the traffic operative to attend Staines/Woking county court (whichever you ask to assign it to) for good measure.

This is quite different from Oxford where the employee dumped his car because there were no spaces.

Can you Dropbox the photos you do have obscuring the registration still.

You should also make clear that you understand from pre-action correspondence that this may be for multiple alleged breaches of contract and that there has been a failure to set out the breaches specific to each event.

System

This guff needs to go from ALL templates.

Perhaps we should have a "get rid of the template guff" week.

If anyone sees guff - call it out rather than let it continue.

nosferatu1001

OK with a date of issue of 11/7 you have 33 days frmo then for the court to receive your defence.

KeithP

Potatini wrote: »

Hi,
as mentioned on the top, the date of issue is 11/7.

No, you said:

Potatini wrote: »

...as expected I received the "court action pack"on 11/7.

Which is why I asked "what is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?".

Potatini

Ok, thanks for the useful notes. I'll make some amendments and drop the "header" as suggested by Johnersh. I get that they don't really care...
I thought it was good to draft a document as detailed as possible...excuse the inexperience!
So, am I right understanding that I should set up a shorter statement without attached evidences and improve the above to a more detailed Defence?
What points do you think are unnecessary or in need of shrinking?

I'll post a link with some photos at soonest. Is it a good idea to go to the place and take my own pictures?
So many doubts...thanks for the support

nosferatu1001

Its not they dont care. You risk antagonising them, and telling them sonething they already know. No idea how you got "dont care" from that.

You draft a DEFENCE that is as detailed as possible, of the legal arguments which is what goes in a defence. A WS tells the story and provides a place to ref evidence.

So no, you are not right. You need to reaad NEWBIES THREAD, POST TWO yet again, bookmark it, and ensure that you understand
Defence
Witness Statement

and the difference between them.

If you dont want to reveal the driver, then you need to edit your post. This is a public forum, the PPCs DO READ THIS, dont argue this point. Its a fact.