UK Parking Limited - County Court claim against me - Castle Car Park

marvalus

Hello all,
I have a bit of an Issue with a UK Parking Limited PCN and now have a Court claim against me, im wondering if anyone is able to help as I have a limited amount of time to get my Defence in,
I have all the info together, it just needs checking over.

The Facts
I parked in Castle Car Park, River street Windsor, Berkshire which is a Private Car park July 2017
I purchased a parking ticket for 2 hours at a cost of £6.00, this was valid for entire time I was parked.
I displayed the parking ticket and then left for a boat trip.

When I returned to the car shortly before the ticket was about to expire, I found a PCN I had purchased had flipped over and was now facedown on the dash board.
somehow the ticket had flipped over, probably a gust of wind or something.
Even though I had a PCN, I still purchased another ticket to cover me for another 2 hours.

Looking at the PCN placed on my screen, it does not have times for Observation from and to, only period of parking which was stated as a fixed time.
The PCN was for £100.00 reduced to £60.00 if paid within 14 days.

I went onto paymypcn website and could see plenty of photos had been taken of the car parked and the ticket I had paid for facedown on the dashboard.
What I observed straight away is that the serial number for the ticket I had paid for was clearly visible in the photos taken, the serial number is unique to each ticket, and is printed on the front and rear of the ticket, so if checked it would have been easily found that I had a valid ticket to park in the car park.

I appealed on the paymypcn website,
unfortunately I dont have a copy of my appeal, But I remember stating that I had purchased a ticket for the period parked, and that the ticket was valid and serial number for this could be seen in the photos taken, I also included a photo of the tickets I had purchased in my appeal.

PCN Parking solutions [for UK Parking Limited] responded to my appeal and rejected my appeal stating the following.
(Your vehicle was observed as being parked in a Pay and Display car park, without clearly displaying a valid Pay and Display ticket; Please note that you can visit our website; paymypcn whereby you can review photographs of this parking event. You will note from these images that the Pay and Display ticket was upside down and was therefore not legible to the Parking Attendant.
Whilst we note the contents of your appeal, these amount to mitigation and are not sufficient to discharge your liability. The onus is on the motorist to ensure that a valid Pay and Display ticket is on display at all times; Whilst you may have been a genuine ticket holder, by failing to ensure that the Pay and Display ticket was correctly on display, you have breached the terms and conditions of parking.)
Something I now need to make you all aware of.
1. I am not the registered keeper of the car I was driving, I had borrowed it
2. They had my First name and Surname the wrong way round.
3. The address was incorrect, (it had no flat number) but I found the letter a few weeks later as it was found by a neighbor, So I did not get the letter until over 6 weeks later.
I ignored the letter as I thought it might just go away, and they had incorrect details for me anyway, and there was no way I was paying £100.00 when I had a valid parking ticket.

At the end of December 2017 I was given a letter from a Neighbour from CSB Solicitors, they now wanted over £200 from me.
again they had the following details incorrect.
1. They had my First name and Surname the wrong way round.
2. The address was incorrect, (it had no flat number) which is why I received the letter several weeks later.
I continued to receive quite a few letters harassing me to pay the amount owed, all delayed due to incorrect address, I ignored them all and hoped they would give up.

April 2018 I receive a County court claim form, again with the above incorrect details demanding I now pay almost £250

I never informed them that I was the driver of the Vehicle, also they have suffered no losses as I had spent a total of £12.00 on parking tickets, this is why I feel strongly that I should not pay anything, but now it has been taken to a county court.

I have acknowledged the claim, But I now only have a few days to submit my defence.

here are the important facts.

1.
Terms and Conditions on Signage stated the following -
Clearly display a valid pay & display parking ticket or permit
As far as I am concerned I followed the Terms & Conditions.

I displayed a valid pay and display parking ticket, I even went out of my way to fix it to the windscreen.
It was July and the weather was hot, this may have caused the ticket to fall of the windscreen, something that was out of my control.

Define - 'Clearly display a valid pay & display parking ticket or permit'
does it mean 'display ticket so it can be read' or Display a ticket so it's clearly a ticket even if it's upside down', how do you know?

2.
I went onto paymypcn.net website and could see plenty of photos had been taken, of the car parked and the ticket I had paid for facedown on the dashboard.
What I observed straight away is that the serial number for the ticket I had paid for was clearly visible in the photos taken, the serial number is unique to each ticket, and is printed on the front and rear of the ticket, so if checked it would have been easily found that I had a valid ticket to park in the car park.

I appealed on the paymypcn.net website, stating that I had purchased a ticket for the period parked, and that the ticket was valid and serial number for this could be seen in the photos taken, I also included a photo of the tickets I had purchased in my appeal.
PCN Parking solutions [for UK Parking Limited] would have been able to clearly see that I had a valid ticket that had been purchased and covered the period I had parked for.

PCN parking solutions responded to my appeal stating the following
The onus is on the motorist to ensure that a valid Pay and Display ticket is on display at all times. Whilst you may have been a genuine ticket holder, by failing to ensure that the Pay and Display ticket was correctly on display, you have breached the terms and conditions of parking.

So they admitted my ticket was valid, but where does it state in the terms and conditions that 'The onus is on the motorist to ensure that a valid Pay and Display ticket is on display at all times' ?
it simply does not state this, that would mean staying with my car for the entire duration the car is parked to make sure it it being displayed clearly.

3.
I paid a fee of £6.00 to park in the car park, my ticket was valid.
even when I received a PCN, I still purchased another ticket for £6.00,
So they received a total of £12.00 from me.
My fee for parking on the land has already been paid.

4.
Looking at the PCN placed on my screen, you can see that it does not have times for Observation from and to, only period of parking which was stated as a fixed time.
So the operator did not allow enough time to see if I was reading the terms and conditions and returning to the vehicle, or if I was walking to or from the payment machine, he did not allow anytime whatsoever.

I will show you what I have for my defence in the next post

marvalus

Hello all,
this is what I have got together from looking at other cases of tickets flipping over etc...
i found a few cases similar to mine on this forum.
could someone please look over it and see what needs to be added/changed?

---

In the County Court
Claim Number:
Between
xxxx (Claimant)
and
xxxx (Defendant)


Defence Statement


Preliminary Matters.

1. 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 which says:
1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you
must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you
as the 'Creditor' within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where
applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover
parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not
necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an
operator to recover parking charges on the landowner's behalf or provide sufficient
right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator
directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.

2. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as
there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars
of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimants are
known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service
have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour
is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest.
Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point:

1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of
claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
a) those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example 'Money
owed £5000'
b) those which are incoherent and make no sense,
c) those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not
disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant
At the very least the Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and asks leave to amend the Defence
On the basis of the above, the Defendant requests the court strike out the claim for want of a
cause of action.

Statement of Defence

I am XXXXX, defendant in this matter.
It is admitted that the Defendant was not the authorised registered keeper, but was the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons.

1. A ticket was paid for and displayed so all details could be seen, until it was dislodged by a gust of wind.
The Defendant has no knowledge of the point at which the ticket flipped over or why. The ticket gave the Defendant a licence to park from 09:MMam on XX/XX/17, covering the time and date relating to the disputed charge. The ticket was displayed which will be demonstrated by the Claimants own evidence, also the evidence shows that the serial number of the ticket was clearly still being displayed on the rear of the ticket when it had become dislodged.

Non-disclosure of reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim
2. The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol and has not disclosed reasonable grounds for bringing a claim.

3. The Particulars of Claim fail to fulfil CPR Part 16.4 because it does not include a statement of the facts on which the claimant relies, only referring to a Parking Charge Notice with no further description; it fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence.

4. The Particulars of Claim provide no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was, whether the claim is brought for breach of contract or trespass, nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Claimant's solicitor has not stated on the claim form that particulars of claim will follow.

5. The defendant appealed to the claimant on xx, xx showing evidence that the parking charge had been paid and covered the parking period in question.
The Defendant has had to cover all possible defences, which has required a great deal of time and has caused significant distress and which denies him a fair chance to defend the claim.
The Claimant's solicitor is known to be a serial issuer of particulars of claim which arise from an automated template, with no due diligence, and is believed to be the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The Defendant argues that the Claimant's conduct in pursing consumers through the small claims track, using an automated system is against the public interest and not something the courts should be seen to support. If the Claimant later provides more detailed particulars of its claim (for instance, in its witness evidence) then the Defendant reserves the right to add further points to his Defence

6. The Defendant invites the court to strike out or dismiss the claim under Rule 3.4(2)(a) of PRACTICE DIRECTION 3A as having not set out a concise statement of the nature of the claim or disclosed reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim (Part 16.4(1)(a) and PRACTICE DIRECTION 16 paragraphs 3.1-3.8). In C3GF84Y (Mason, Plymouth County Court), the judge struck out the claim brought by KBT Cornwall Ltd as Gladstones Solicitors had not submitted proper Particulars of Claim, and similar reasons were cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''. On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were efficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 !!!8211; 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.
The Practice Direction also sets out the following example which is analogous to this claim: !!!8216;those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example 'Money owed £5000'
No invitation to park on certain terms

7. The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it
difficult to read. Part E, Schedule 1 of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee (of which ES is a member), clearly states that 'Text should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign'

8. A contract was never formed. There was never a contractual relationship, whether categorised as a licence or some form of contractual permission, because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding, per C5GF17X2, Guildford County Court, heard by Judge McCulloch, citing Arrale v Costain Civil Engineering Ltd [1976] 1 Lloyd!!!8217;s Rep 98:
!!!8216;!!!8230;in this case there is no evidence of a true accord at all. No one explained to [the plaintiff] that he might have a claim at common law. No one gave a thought to it. So there cannot be an agreement to release it. There being no true accord, he is not barred from pursuing his claim at common law
Consumer Rights Act (CRA) 2015 Unfair Terms

9. Even if a contract had been formed it would be void, or in the alternative the following terms are either not transparent or are unfair, and these terms are not binding on the consumer, for the following reasons. Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 provides that the Court has a duty to consider the fairness of the terms.

10. The term 'Clearly display a valid pay & display parking ticket or permit' in particular the meaning of 'Clearly display' is not transparent per Section 68 of the CRA 2015. Where contract terms have different meanings Section 69 of the CRA 2015 provides a statutory form of the contra proferentem rule, such that the consumer must be given the benefit of the doubt. A valid ticket was displayed in the Defendant's vehicle. If the Claimant wanted to impose a term to continuously display permits, then they should have drafted clear terms to that effect. Fluttering ticket cases have been ruled by PATAS adjudicators in Council PCN adjudications as requiring specific terms to 'continuously display' or there is no contravention. The term is fundamental to the contract, and the Defendant invites the Court to find that it is not transparent and therefore unfair. If a fundamental term to the contract is deemed to be unfair, then the contract will cease to bind the parties. The Defence invites the Court to take these issues into account in determining the fairness of the term.

11. The Defendant includes the views of Council Adjudicators regarding the well-known issue of 'flimsy fluttering tickets' in his defence, because the Supreme Court (and the Court of Appeal Judges) in Beavis found it appropriate to draw similarities with Council PCNs:
(((((( Link))))))))

In DB05057D the adjudicator said: having seen the original ticket I note that it is made of rather thin paper which is likely to be dislodged when a car door is shut. It may be that the Council would argue that it is the driver's responsibility to ensure that the ticket is on display when the vehicle is left, but on the other hand if it chooses to issue pay and display tickets made of such thin paper it must expect that now and again this type of situation will arise. 'In HV05040D the adjudicator accepted the appellant's evidence that she had displayed the ticket on the dash and checked after closing the door that it was still there. He said: 'I am not aware of any signs in the car park suggesting the use of adhesives by motorists when parking their cars'

Locus standi
12. The Claimant has no standing to bring this claim, or in the alternative the doctrine of privity applies and the Claimant is not privy to a contract that is between the landowner and the defendant. The proper Claimant is the landowner. The Defendant has reasonable belief that a statutory assignment has not taken place, therefore per Viscount Haldane's judgement in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847, the Claimant may only sue on the contract as an agent if consideration has been given by the landowner personally or through the Claimant acting as agent; no such consideration flows as the Claimant does not receive payment from the landowner to manage the site in the landowner's commercial interest, does not receive any proceeds from the sale of tickets, and does not offer parking as consideration for the Defendant's payment for a licence to park. The Claimant's business model is solely driven by the recovery of penalty fees. Strict proof is required that there is an assignment of contractual rights leading from the landowner to ES Parking Enforcement Ltd. The Defendant has 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 locus standi to bring this case, per Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] 1B &S 393, as confirmed by the House of Lords in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd. The Defendant also has reasonable belief that the tests of enforceability for the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 have not been met. The Claimant has failed to establish an express conferral pursuant to section 1(1)(a) and section 1(3), which requires precise terms which identify the Claimant, and which expressly state that the Claimant has the !!!8216;right to enforce the contract,;
or the !!!8216;right to sue!!!8217;, or even to demonstrate an implied conferral per section(1)(1)(b) and section 1(3), which requires a term to expressly confer a benefit on the Claimant and for the Claimant to be specifically named, noting that it is not a benefit if the Claimant's position is merely improved if the contract is performed (A Burrows The Contracts (Right of Third Parties) Act 1999 and its implications for commercial contracts; [2000] LMCLQ 540, 542-546). Furthermore as per Trendtex Trading Corporation v Credit Suisse [1982] AC 679, a mere right to sue for damages is not assignable unless the assignee has a genuine commercial interest in taking the assignment; and Lords Neuberger and Sumption!!!8217;s judgement (at [28]), in Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, shows that the Claimant does not have a wider legitimate interest extending beyond the prospect of damages, as their interest is only limited to the recovery of compensation for the alleged breach of contract, and no commercial interest has engaged as to the control of parking as the Defendant had paid for a licence to park.
Trespass

13. The Particulars of Claim are deficient in establishing whether the claim is brought in trespass. In the event that a trespass claim is brought by the Claimant, the Defendant parked on land where parking was invited and paid for full authority to park, and did not overstay. Trespass cannot therefore apply. Furthermore, the Defendant has reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have a contractual or proprietary right to occupy or possess the car park per Hill v Tupper [1863] 2 H & C 121; the landowner has not assigned rights to enable the Claimant to pursue a case under the tort of trespass. In any event, the Defendant!!!8217;s sole liability would be damages in favour of the landowner. Per the Supreme Court in the case of Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi and ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case), trespass is limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

Applicability of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67
14. The Claimant might argue that the Supreme Court!!!8217;s landmark decision in the Beavis case is applicable.

15. This case is not supported by any similarity in the circumstances or signage. Mr Beavis refused to pay a charge of £85 for overstaying a permitted period of free parking in a car park at a retail park. The signs displaying this information were accepted to be large, prominent and legible. The notice stated 2 hour max stay; Failure to comply; will result in a Parking Charge of £85; Mr Beavis exceeded the time limit by one hour but declined to pay the charge and maintained the term which sought to impose the charge was an unfair term. The Beavis case does not assist the claimant and in fact, supports my defence.
The agreed damages clause is a penalty

16. The signage provides for a parking charge of £100 if the terms and conditions of parking are breached. The Claimant seeks £160.00 which is an extravagant and unconscionable penalty, and therefore unenforceable - particularly because the Defendant has shown that he did purchase a valid ticket and the Claimant has therefore suffered no loss, and because any breach of contract (which, for the avoidance of doubt, is denied) was de minimis . No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs.
Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.

17. In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis the Supreme Court recast the test to be applied when seeking to distinguish a liquidated damages clause from a penalty clause. To engage a penalty the question was whether the relevant provision was unconscionable; or extravagant; (Lord Hodge at [221]). The full test was expounded by Lord Hodge (at [255]):
I therefore conclude that the correct test for a penalty is whether the sum or remedy stipulated as a consequence of a breach of contract is exorbitant or unconscionable when regard is had to the innocent party's interest in the performance of the contract. Where the test is to be applied to a clause fixing the level of damages to be paid on breach, an extravagant disproportion between the stipulated sum and the highest level of damages that could possibly arise from the breach would amount to a penalty and thus be unenforceable. In other circumstances the contractual provision that applies on breach is measured against the interest of the innocent party which is protected by the contract and the court asks whether the remedy is exorbitant or unconscionable;

18. The Supreme Court was only prepared to accept a charge (£85) that was sufficient to act as a disincentive and that was worth collecting. The Supreme Court had previously stated that £135 would be unacceptable (ParkingEye v Somerfield). The charge to the Defendant of £160.00 is evidently extravagant and unconscionable in that it is disproportionate to the Claimant!!!8217;s interest, and disproportionate to the highest level of damages that could possibly arise from the Defendant's alleged breach of contract.

19. The Defendant therefore disputes the amount claimed, as it comprises excessive and non-contractual elements, and additional costs must be proved. With reference to paragraph 17, the Claimant claims a sum of £160.00 as a ;parking charge' (for which liability is denied), which includes £60 that the claimant has untruthfully presented as contractual charges, which amounts to double charging, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

20. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed
between the parties and no contract was established. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

21. The Claimant has claimed a £50 legal representative's cost on the claim form, despite being well aware that CPR 27.14 does not permit such charges to be recovered in the Small Claims Court. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the charges have not been invoiced and/or paid. The Defendant also has a good faith belief that due to the sparse particulars the £50 claimed for filing the claim has not been incurred. This appears to be an attempt at double recovery as a way to inflate the value of the claim. The solicitor has been incompetent and is not due £50. In the alternative, the Claimant is put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred.

22. The £50 solicitor cost was disputed in the test case of ParkingEye v Beavis and Wardley. HHJ Moloney refused to award the £50. His award was; ;JUDGMENT FOR CLAIMANT FOR £85 PLUS ISSUE COST. These were presumably the £25 filing fee and £25 hearing fee.
9. The £50 was also struck out by DJ Sparrow on 19 August 2015 in ParkingEye v Mrs S, claim number B9FC508F.


23. The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim for the above grounds.


I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.


(Name) (Signature) (Date)

KeithP

Here are some more important facts:

The private parking companies trawl forums like this waiting for people to trip themselves up.

They can and will use your posts against you.


You need to edit your posts to remove all clues to the driver's identity.
It was the driver who parked.
It was the driver who purchased a ticket.
It was the driver who stuck the ticket on the windscreen.
Etc, etc, etc...

There is no place for the word 'I' when describing events on the day.


What is the date of issue on your claim form?


Edited to add:
Now that I have read your Defence, and can see that you are admitting in it to being the driver, you can ignore most of what I have written here.

marvalus

thank you for this,
Should I or should I not admit to being the driver?
I will go with whatever is best,

cheers

Redx

if you have already indicated or named yourself as driver, you use that aspect in your defence and describe events that you were a legitimate party to, meaning you cannot use any POFA2012 arguments as they only protect a keeper

if the driver has not been named or inferred up to now, then you might want a defence based as a keeper

as a driver , you want one like in this "de minimis" thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5650838/fine-from-civil-enforcment-help&page=5

so review your facts and decide if this is a keeper appeal (where the driver has not been revealed), OR a defence as a driver ,(where a drivers details have been revealed)

its important to structure your case for the best outcome , but you cannot use keeper arguments if a driver has been outed (your popla saga indicates that you were the driver in what the adjudicator said about YOUR TICKET BEING VALID)

blabbing costs money, but perjury is worse

ps:- in your post #1 you said UK Parking Limited

surely you mean UK Parking Control Limited ???

KeithP

As far as I can see the only way you could have received a Court Claim in your name is by already appealing as the driver - before even a Notice to Keeper had been issued.

I would guess that in that appeal that you didn't keep a copy of, you will have said you were the driver.

One less hurdle for the PPC to jump.

I'm also going to guess that when you filled in your name at online appeal time, that you put the name parts in back to front. They can certainly assert that if challenged and you cannot show otherwise. But it doesn't really matter how that occurred - it is insignificant.

What is the date of issue on your claim form?

Umkomaas

surely you mean UK Parking Control Limited ???

No, I think it's this lot Red. They're pretty active around Windsor Castle.

https://padi.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/203684472-UK-Parking-Ltd

They'll have a ticket-fest next weekend. I wonder if they'll manage to slap a ticket on the horse-drawn carriage. They wouldn't mind if they could snag a Roller or two, either.

If we get a new poster in the next few weeks under the user name 'prinsarry', or 'sunofyouwit', you'll know that the PPC will have struck lucky!

marvalus

Thanks RedX,
Yes I am the driver, Not the keeper so i will leave it like that then.
Yes it was UK Parking limited who also took out a court claim on another person in this forum for the same reason.

marvalus

thanks keith,

yes i think your probably right, it would have been from my appeal as the driver.
date of issue is 12th of April, so i think I have until 15th of May to submit defence.

marvalus

Understood Umkomaas,
If you could please just point me in the right direction,
as I only have about 2 days left to submit the Defence.
I'm not very good with the Legal jargon and just need someone to read it through for me and let me know if i should add or remove anything.

thank you all so much

Coupon-mad

I don't understand how this quote relates to forbidding signs?

The terms are forbidding, per C5GF17X2, Guildford County Court, heard by Judge McCulloch, citing Arrale v Costain Civil Engineering Ltd [1976] 1 Lloyds Rep 98:
'in this case there is no evidence of a true accord at all. No one explained to [the plaintiff] that he might have a claim at common law. No one gave a thought to it. So there cannot be an agreement to release it. There being no true accord, he is not barred from pursuing his claim at common law'