Euro Parking Services PCN

securitymatters

I made a mistake the company and employee I spoke with on the day of the incident was Euro Parking Services Ltd and all the other details are exact and correct, I went up and asked if it was ok to park in the access road to unload stock, tools and ladders which were extremely heavy into the immediate building bordering the car park, he said it was fine for tradesmen and I was ok to park there.
I was gone 20 minutes to half an hour and the van had been ticketed, in the windscreen was the name of the shop I was working in also.

I know this may be a pain but I have looked at the Newby's threads and haven't a clue how to construct the defence as none of them seem relevant to the this PCN that states "Parked on: Double yellow lines/Crosshatched bay/Restricted area of the car park". The lines referred to are extremely faded and it was pitch black of winter, no signs were visible and there is no lighting in the driveway.
Do I use the fact that I spoke with the employee who then ticketed me or ignore that can anyone give me some pointers as I get next to no time to put into this but fully believ its a huge scam. These people have also ticketed the owner of the business to whom I was delivering & working for.

Coupon-mad

We have concise defence examples for you, in the 2nd post of the NEWBIES thread. Look what a good job one of many posters with a meritless claim made, when pointed to the templates:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5930505

Not the first version, the one in post #12 there.

All they did was adapted bargepole's concise template from the NEWBIES thread. You can too!!
The OP of that thread was like you, then was pointed to the right place in the NEWBIES thread & hey presto, their defence is a good one and almost done.

Not that this is the only stage...be aware of what happens when (again, it's in the sticky).

Reading that little thread I just linked is not a shortcut to avoid you actually reading the 2nd post of the NEWBIES thread at each stage of this process. I've given it to you to show how a bad defence becomes good one, very easily.

You - and any poster with any PPC claim - can easily compile a defence by using bargepole's concise defence example from the NEWBIES thread. Just add your words about the facts, putting it all in the third person: ''The Defendant spoke to ...blah blah and was assured that a trader could unload there...and then the same individual Euro Parking Services employee ticketed the vehicle just minutes later'' etc.

You can then add something about 'promissory estoppel' (search this forum - easy).

You will be surprised how easy it becomes when you start with the basic template by bargepole & just have to add 'the facts are' points.

securitymatters

Hi many thanks for help thus far, having looked at as many threads suggested as possible here is my draft defence I welcome your capable and helpful responses to further strengthen the defence, thank you in advance:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

EURO PARKING SERVICES LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all and further denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence. The claimants solicitor Gladstones assert in their “Letter Before Claim” that the defendant has failed to settle the debt it claims is owing, or provide a valid reason for non-payment. This is entire fabrication as the Euro Parking Services Ltd representative deliberately misled the defendant in initiating a false statement as grounds for parking and a written response was given and not acknowledged as we now understand to be part of the routine method of serially ignoring a defendants responses in order to escalate the possibility for the financial gain of the claimant.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in the access road as it was next to the customers building as the defendant had a large amount of equipment, heavy ladders and goods to transfer into the property. The Defendant saw and spoke with a representative of Euro Parking Services Ltd in the main car park and told him what the defendant was doing and asked if any payment for parking was necessary (there was no parking machine or clear signage), he said no he would ok the defendant parking there and would not issue a ticket, adding contractors with legitimate reasons for using the car park and road are fine, he said. Shortly after this the defendant saw the representative again and on a subsequent occasion upon which they again assured the defendant it was fine to park in the road for unloading.
In addition to this the defendant left a clear A4 sign in the windscreen stating where he was working ie:the perimeter building bordering the access road, the defendant returned to the vehicle and found the same Euro Parking Services employee had ticketed the vehicle just minutes later.

Further to this the defendant would site the legal principle of Promissory estoppel in that a promise is enforceable by law, even if made without formal consideration, when a promisor has made a promise to a promisee who then relies on that promise to his subsequent detriment.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant !!!8220;was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)!!!8221;. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. Further Gladstones Solicitors acting for the claimant have further inflated the claim in regard to what they refer as their costs £50 to a wholly unwarranted attempt to multiply the recovery figure.

9. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

securitymatters

Hi many thanks for help thus far, having looked at as many threads suggested as possible here is my draft defence I welcome your capable and helpful responses to further strengthen the defence, thank you in advance:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

EURO PARKING SERVICES LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all and further denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence. The claimants solicitor Gladstones assert in their “Letter Before Claim” that the defendant has failed to settle the debt it claims is owing, or provide a valid reason for non-payment. This is entire fabrication as the Euro Parking Services Ltd representative deliberately misled the defendant in initiating a false statement as grounds for parking and a written response was given and not acknowledged as we now understand to be part of the routine method of serially ignoring a defendants responses in order to escalate the possibility for the financial gain of the claimant.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in the access road as it was next to the customers building as the defendant had a large amount of equipment, heavy ladders and goods to transfer into the property. The Defendant saw and spoke with a representative of Euro Parking Services Ltd in the main car park and told him what the defendant was doing and asked if any payment for parking was necessary (there was no parking machine or clear signage), he said no he would ok the defendant parking there and would not issue a ticket, adding contractors with legitimate reasons for using the car park and road are fine, he said. Shortly after this the defendant saw the representative again and on a subsequent occasion upon which they again assured the defendant it was fine to park in the road for unloading.
In addition to this the defendant left a clear A4 sign in the windscreen stating where he was working ie:the perimeter building bordering the access road, the defendant returned to the vehicle and found the same Euro Parking Services employee had ticketed the vehicle just minutes later.

Further to this the defendant would site the legal principle of Promissory estoppel in that a promise is enforceable by law, even if made without formal consideration, when a promisor has made a promise to a promisee who then relies on that promise to his subsequent detriment.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant !!!8220;was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)!!!8221;. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. Further Gladstones Solicitors acting for the claimant have further inflated the claim in regard to what they refer as their costs £50 to a wholly unwarranted attempt to multiply the recovery figure.

9. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

securitymatters

Hi many thanks for help thus far, having looked at as many threads suggested as possible here is my draft defence I welcome your capable and helpful responses to further strengthen the defence, thank you in advance:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

EURO PARKING SERVICES LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all and further denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence. The claimants solicitor Gladstones assert in their “Letter Before Claim” that the defendant has failed to settle the debt it claims is owing, or provide a valid reason for non-payment. This is entire fabrication as the Euro Parking Services Ltd representative deliberately misled the defendant in initiating a false statement as grounds for parking and a written response was given and not acknowledged as we now understand to be part of the routine method of serially ignoring a defendants responses in order to escalate the possibility for the financial gain of the claimant.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in the access road as it was next to the customers building as the defendant had a large amount of equipment, heavy ladders and goods to transfer into the property. The Defendant saw and spoke with a representative of Euro Parking Services Ltd in the main car park and told him what the defendant was doing and asked if any payment for parking was necessary (there was no parking machine or clear signage), he said no he would ok the defendant parking there and would not issue a ticket, adding contractors with legitimate reasons for using the car park and road are fine, he said. Shortly after this the defendant saw the representative again and on a subsequent occasion upon which they again assured the defendant it was fine to park in the road for unloading.
In addition to this the defendant left a clear A4 sign in the windscreen stating where he was working ie:the perimeter building bordering the access road, the defendant returned to the vehicle and found the same Euro Parking Services employee had ticketed the vehicle just minutes later.

Further to this the defendant would site the legal principle of Promissory estoppel in that a promise is enforceable by law, even if made without formal consideration, when a promisor has made a promise to a promisee who then relies on that promise to his subsequent detriment.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant !!!8220;was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)!!!8221;. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. Further Gladstones Solicitors acting for the claimant have further inflated the claim in regard to what they refer as their costs £50 to a wholly unwarranted attempt to multiply the recovery figure.

9. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

securitymatters

Hi many thanks for help thus far, having looked at as many threads suggested as possible here is my draft defence I welcome your capable and helpful responses to further strengthen the defence, thank you in advance:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

EURO PARKING SERVICES LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all and further denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence. The claimants solicitor Gladstones assert in their “Letter Before Claim” that the defendant has failed to settle the debt it claims is owing, or provide a valid reason for non-payment. This is entire fabrication as the Euro Parking Services Ltd representative deliberately misled the defendant in initiating a false statement as grounds for parking and a written response was given and not acknowledged as we now understand to be part of the routine method of serially ignoring a defendants responses in order to escalate the possibility for the financial gain of the claimant.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in the access road as it was next to the customers building as the defendant had a large amount of equipment, heavy ladders and goods to transfer into the property. The Defendant saw and spoke with a representative of Euro Parking Services Ltd in the main car park and told him what the defendant was doing and asked if any payment for parking was necessary (there was no parking machine or clear signage), he said no he would ok the defendant parking there and would not issue a ticket, adding contractors with legitimate reasons for using the car park and road are fine, he said. Shortly after this the defendant saw the representative again and on a subsequent occasion upon which they again assured the defendant it was fine to park in the road for unloading.
In addition to this the defendant left a clear A4 sign in the windscreen stating where he was working ie:the perimeter building bordering the access road, the defendant returned to the vehicle and found the same Euro Parking Services employee had ticketed the vehicle just minutes later.

Further to this the defendant would site the legal principle of Promissory estoppel in that a promise is enforceable by law, even if made without formal consideration, when a promisor has made a promise to a promisee who then relies on that promise to his subsequent detriment.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant !!!8220;was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)!!!8221;. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. Further Gladstones Solicitors acting for the claimant have further inflated the claim in regard to what they refer as their costs £50 to a wholly unwarranted attempt to multiply the recovery figure.

9. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

securitymatters

Despite the fact that I was asked to post my Draft Defence on here for critique/help and I understand that this is not paid advise or help and people are busy time has now run out and I will have to post the defence to the County Court and hope it serves the purpose.

KeithP

securitymatters wrote: »

...time has now run out and I will have to post the defence to the County Court and hope it serves the purpose.

Why is that then? You have until next Wednesday.

Are you really planning on posting it? Re-read post #14.

Posting the same thing four times won't help.

securitymatters

The point of posting the draft defence I was told by the folks in the know is so that a review by people with (see Thread #21) more legal knowledge could happen but it hasn't its Monday and the draft has been on here over a week, so posting a draft obviously is pointless.

Redx

its not pointless, it just means that of the very few people with legal training on here, none have commented and those of us with no legal backgrounds have refrained from pointlessly posting (until now)

its also NOT POINTLESS because other members now and in the future may use your draft as a basis for their draft, especially if you win and if your thread is used as an example to others

this isnt just about you

plus the fact that this forum is far too busy and there arent enough volunteers, so start helping others like the rest of us do (even if we dont have court claims in progress and/or have never had a court claim) - read this I wrote recently

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=75126216&postcount=46

the me , me , me attitude is far too prevalent on here and in the media (the #metoo option) - its a 2 way street

for all we know somebody with legal background may post and tell you it was fine, no matter when they do it

good luck