CEL court letter

Coupon-mad

The Defendant has already proved that he was a patron of Kids Play Limited,

I would keep the driver not identified, because CEL issue non-POFA PCNs. So:

The Defendant has already proved that the occupants of the car that day were patrons of Kids Play Limited

lorealv1

I requested CEL further particulars of claim (letter below) and its been 10 days and no reply. How can I add the lack of response in my defense? Thank you


ART 18 REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

PCN: xxxx
Car Registration no: xxxxx
Car park: xxxx

I write to you as the former registered keeper of the above vehicle following receipt of the N1 Claim form from Northampton County Court, pursuing damages in relation to an alleged breach of contract. I am making a request for the following information, under Part 18 of the Court Procedure Rules, in order for me to further assess my legal position. Please note that in keeping with Practice Direction, this letter deals with no other matters other than the Request. However, I will write to you separately regarding other matters that I feel are of relevance in this claim and will require your consideration.
I request provision of the following:
1. A copy of the contract drawn up between the land owner and yourselves (non-redacted) in which it establishes the legal contractual basis on which you may establish a loss to yourselves as contractors to the rightful landowner.
2. A copy of all photographic evidence held which clearly identifies the vehicle in question (registration xxxx) entering and leaving the car park during the period of alleged contravention, including any available images which include the driver at the time.
3. Specimen designs or photographs of all signage within the car park, together with identified loci or site plans, clearly indicating any additions or alterations to the position, size, or prominence of any signage since the date of alleged contravention.
4. Information providing a breakdown of your alleged loss and how this has been arrived at (if estimations have been used then full evidence and justification for such estimations should be supplied).
I feel that there would be no reasonable justification for not providing the above information in full. If you choose not to co-operate with of any of the above requests, then you must provide me with a clear and concise explanation as to why not.
I require a response to this request within 10 days from receipt of this letter which I believe to be a reasonable period of time.
Yours faithfully

xxxx

lorealv1

Also I have 4 letters from the people at the party saying they also parked on the same car park and didnt see any visible signage. They also say they assumed car park was free. Again, where on my defense this should go? Im having trouble placing the lack of response for my request of particulars of claim and these 4 letters.
Any advise will be greatly appreciated!

Coupon-mad

Witness statements from other people are submitted later, when you submit your own WS. At defence stage, nothing is attached, no evidence or statements or photos or case law yet.

Lack of response to a request for more details particulars can be mentioned in passing near the start, it's not a big issue in your defence, as such, just an observation you'd want the Judge to read.

But as it is CEL there won't be any hearing or Judge anyway; they will drop out before.

You do need to read the NEWBIES thread link to bargepole's summary explaining what happens when because this isn't the end of it yet. We honestly can't be bothered (have no time) to answer any more newbies who come back bleating that they got a DQ N180 form next, ''so does that mean my case is different and will go to a hearing?'' No.

Be prepared, do the stages, and you will be out of this scam by August.

Loadsofchildren123

lorealv1 wrote: »

Thank you all for your replies.


I have now drafted a defence, taken from a similar case. I have asked them for the particulars of claim, this was emailed and posted recorded on friday. Gave them 10 days to get back to me but im not holding my breath they will. I've seen your other post re Part 18 request. well done for educating yourself about all of this, it's gratefully acknowledged! Part 18 doesn't actually apply to small claims, but of course you are entitled to sufficient information to understand the claim and how they intend to prove it and that is all in the pre-action Protocol for Debt Claims which applies post-October 2017 and the old Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct which applied before that (and paras 13-16 continue to apply). It's par for the course that the PPCs ignore these requests. You can complain about this to high heaven in your WS and in your defence too.


This defence is basically acknoledging my huband is the driver so Im not sure whether it will be wise to just change this one completly and go for "keepers liability" one. No, I'd deny being the driver but don't identify the driver.


You need to add in a section for keeper's liability and how you deny that.

[FONT=&quot]DEFENCE[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]



Background - the Defendant driver was an authorised patron of Kids Play Ltd Soft Play.
1. The Claimant is in breach of CPR Part 16.4 because the Particulars of Claim contains only sparse details of what the claim is for and how it arose. The Defendant assumes that it relates to an alleged debt arising from the driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at xxx car park on xxx/16. [I've swapped these 2 round][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. The Defendant admits that she was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the relevant date but denies being the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. The Defendant denies that the driver entered into any contract with the Claimant. In the alternative, if any such contract was entered into it is denied that the driver breached its terms. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant £100 'parking charge' for the lawful conduct described below.

2. The allegation appears to be that the 'vehicle was not authorised to use the car park' based on images by the Claimant's ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. The Claimant has produced no evidence of the absence of authorisation and the Defendant puts it to full proof thereof. The driver of the vehicle at the relevant time was 'No Authorisation' or not being a patron of Kids Play Limited and it is averred that the driver was therefore authorised. The Defendant has already provided evidence to the Claimant that the driver was a patron of Kids Play Limited[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
3. The Defendant has already provided evidence to the Claimant that the driver was a patron of Kids Play Limited, and it is No contract can have been formed between the driver and the Claimant because the Claimant's signage displayed on the land at the relevant time was hard to see, not obvious to users of the site and its wording was obscure. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][new para number] Even if the Claimant's signs were capable of forming a contract with the driver, the terms and conditions displayed on the Claimant's signage were that patrons of Kids Play Limited were entitled to park on the site for free while using its facilities and the driver , as a patron, therefore complied with any terms and conditions 's own failure, caused by their deliberately obscure terms and signage that catches out far too many victims at this location, that has given rise to a 'PCN' that was not properly issued from the outset. I WILL CHASE UP THE FORMER MANAGER (HAVE SENT EMIAL ALREADY, SHE IS ON HOLIDAY)TO WRITE A LETTER STATING THE AGREEMENT FOR FREE PARKING WITH CEL.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]4. The date and time of the alleged breach of Terms was Sunday XXX fromXX to XX. The day on this alleged breach meant no other business located at this industrial site was open for business and there were only a handful of cars in the car park, most of them belonged to Defendant!!!8217;s friends of the driver who, like the driver, were attending a the private party held at Kids Play Ltd, and none of whom who did not received a parking ticket for parking at this site during the same or very similar hours.


Unclear terms - no agreement to pay a penalty for failure to use a parking form
4. According to the sparse, unlit signs in this car park, to avoid a Parking Charge, users of the service must either purchase a ticket by machine or phone OR must be "Patrons" of businesses, including Kids Play Limited.

4.1. At the time of parking on 10/07/16, the Defendant was a patron of Kids Play Ltd, and the Defendant has a letter from the party organiser at Kids Play Ltd which entitled them to free use of the car park in question. This evidence has been accepted by the manager of Kids Play Ltd as proof of patronage. MY FRIEND IS WILLING TO WRITE A LETTER SAYING WE ATTENDED THAT PARTY.

4.2. It is contended that the Claimant failed to alert regular local visitors to an onerous change you've said above that signage said parking free for patrons - so how did they fail to alert visitors? I think I've got the point you're trying to make, is it this:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Claimant's signage stated that patrons of Kids Play Ltd (along with other businesses operating from the same site, but none of whom were open on the relevant date, which was a Sunday) were exempt from the obligation to purchase a ticket by machine or by telephone. The signage did not state that patrons had to take any further steps in relation to identifying themselves as patrons (eg by signing a registration form at the front desk and/or providing their vehicle registration number). Any such obligation cannot therefore have formed part of any contract formed between driver and the Claimant (which, for the avoidance of doubt, is denied). and unexpected obligation to use a registration form at Kids Play Ltd or risk £100 penalty. The Claimant is put to strict proof, with the bar being set by Denning LJ in J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] in the well-known 'Red Hand Rule' where hidden/unknown terms were held to be unenforceable: ''Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink...with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient.''


Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations - breach
5. Upon receiving the claim, the Defendant phoned Kids Play Ltd and had a fairly long conversation with one of the Managers, who was unhappy to hear that the Claimant what Civil Enforcement Ltd was taking the defendant to court and expressed his disgust with the Claimant suing their patrons.

5.1. By The requirement for the driver to complete a registration form in order to register him/herself as a patron of Kids Play Ltd was not communicated to the driver on the Claimant's signage. Failing to alert a consumer of such a requirements, where the failure then leads to a substantial charge being claimed against the consumer, is a 'misleading omission' of material facts and the Claimant is in breach of the CPUTR. These breaches of the CPUTRs 2008 have led to an unfair PCN, which the Claimant has refused to cancel prevented its cancellation before proceeding started and this conduct by the Claimant has severely disadvantaged the Defendant.

5.3. The only route offered was an 'appeal' to Civil Enforcement Ltd themselves, but the Defendant knew he had done nothing wrong as a matter of principle, and honestly believed from research that private parking charges and the appeals systems were unlikely to be fairly weighted in favour of consumers. I'd leave this out of the defence but put it in your WS

5.4. This fact was later confirmed in the second reading of the Private Parking Code of Practice Bill on 2nd February 2018, where more than one MP shamed companies like the Claimant with quotes that include: ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; ''wilfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead''; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; ''unreasonable; operating in a disgusting way''; ''appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing''; ''outrageous scam''; ''the British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey 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''. !!!8220;It is important that motorists should have the certainty that when they enter a car park on private land they are entering into a contract that is reasonable, transparent and evolves a process that is consistent. Poor signage, unreasonable terms, exorbitant fines, aggressive demands for payment!!!8230;have no place in twentieth first century!!!8221;.again I'd leave this for your WS, it's not really a defence point


No locus standi
6. In order to issue and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. The Claimant Civil Enforcement Ltd has taken no steps to provide evidence that such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, and the Claimant is put to strict proof.


No 'legitimate interest' or commercial justification - Beavis is distinguished
7. Even if the Claimant is able to produce such a landowner contract, it is averred that there can be no legitimate interest arguable by the Claimant in this case. When Civil Enforcement Ltd, unfairly ticket a patron of Kids Play, any commercial justification in the form of support by Kids Play for such unfair ticketing is absent. Indeed, the opposite is the case, with Kids Play Ltd supporting the Defendant and not the Claimant in this matter.

7.1. With no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant is fully aware that their claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail. This case is fully distinguished in all respects, from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the decision turned on a legitimate interest and clear notices.


Data Protection Act and BPA Code of Practice breach
8. This Claimant uses ANPR camera systems to process data but fails to comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information' (the ICO Code). This is both a specific Data Protection and BPA Code of Practice breach.

8.1. The ICO Code applies to all ANPR systems, and states that the private sector is required to follow it, in order to meet its legal obligations as a data processor. Members of the BPA are required to comply fully with the Data Protection Act (DPA) and all ICO rules and guidelines, as a pre-requisite of being able to use the DVLA KADOE system and in order to enforce parking charges on private land.

8.2. The Claimant's failures to comply include, but are not limited to the following, and the Claimant is put to strict proof otherwise on all counts:

i) Lack of an initial privacy impact assessment, and

ii) Lack of an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, considering concepts that would impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle, and

iii) Failure to regularly evaluate whether it was necessary and proportionate to continue using ANPR, together with a Registration Form as a secondary data processing system at this site, as opposed to a less privacy-intrusive method of parking enforcement (such as 'light touch' enforcement only at busy times, or manning the car park with a warden in order to consider the needs of genuine patrons), and

iv) Failure to prominently inform a driver in large lettering on clear signage, of the purpose of the ANPR system and the registration form system and how the data captured on both would be used, and

v) Lack of the 'Privacy Notice' required to deliver mandatory information about an individual's right of subject access, under the DPA. At no point has the Defendant been advised how to apply for, and what a data subject's rights are, to obtain all images and data held via a Subject Access Request from the Claimant.

9. This Claimant has therefore failed to meet its legal obligations and has breached principle 1 (at least) of the DPA, as well as the BPA Code of Practice.




Unconscionable and unrecoverable inflation of the 'parking charge'
10. In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported Solicitor's Costs of £50, which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant because the Claimant does not use solicitors, instead processing claims in-house.

14.1. Whilst £50 may be recoverable in an instance where a claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim, Civil Enforcement Ltd have not expended any such sum in this case. This Claimant has a Legal Team with salaried in-house Solicitors and it files hundreds of similar 'cut & paste' robo-claims per month, not incurring any legal cost per case. I put the Claimant to strict proof to the contrary because the in-house Solicitors cannot possibly be believed to be paid in the millions per annum for their services.

15. The added 'legal' cost is in fact an artificially invented figure, which represents a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules and achieve double recovery. In Beavis, only the parking charge itself (£85) was pursued and the sum was scrutinised by the Supreme Court and held to already include a significant sum in profit; being a pre-set sum dressed up as a fee or charge agreed in contract. This was already significantly over and above the very minimal costs of operating an automated ticketing regime, and it was held that the claim could not have been pleaded as damages, and would have failed.

15.1. Similarly, in Somerfield a £75 parking charge was not held to be a penalty but a sum mentioned in the harassing letters of double that amount, almost certainly would be.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]new para: The Claimant has added further charges to the original £100 charge. The Defendant denies that such further charges formed part of any contract formed between driver and the Claimant (which is, for the avoidance of doubt denied). Even if the Claimant is entitled to recover further charges, these are accounted for by the discounted element of the charge given for early payment being added back to the sum sought.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
16. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety and denies any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

I confirm that the facts in this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.


Name/signature

Date[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Please do let me know what you all think! Thank you!
[/FONT]

This is so much better than the out of date CEL defences that get regurgitated.


So you are the Defendant? But another person was driving?


So you must deny being the driver.


Think this through logically and separate out your defences in a logical order:


1. D was not the driver, but was the rk.


2. D cannot be liable as RK because [add something in about requirements for POFA to be complied with, and how those requirements were breached - eg NtK served late]


3. Even if liable as RK, or alternatively if court finds D was the driver (which is denied), there was no contract formed with the driver because of inadequate signage.


4 Alternatively, even if there was a contract formed, the driver didn't breach it because they complied with the terms and conditions on the signs, which actually said parking was free to patrons of the various businesses on the site. Driver was a patron. Therefore driver did not breach the T&Cs becaseu they did not require the driver to pay for the parking, as a patron.


5. The signs did not specify any requirement on behalf of the driver to sign in to the reception desk, or via any other method, to identify themselves as a patron. Therefore this requirement cannot have formed part of the contract (although a contract is denied) between driver and Claimant. It is also a breach of the Regulations.


Then you have other points such as the breach of the Regulations, breach of BPA CoP etc, but these are all secondary points. 1-5 are your main points and you should set them out in that order.




Just a minor drafting point which I always make a bit of a fuss about:
The Claimant is an "it" not a "they", because a company is always described in the singular, not the plural. Refer to it always as the Claimant, not by name (CEL).
This last point really is not the end of the world, but I've been saying "it" and then later on you are saying "they" and I didn't bother changing your references.

Loadsofchildren123

To put this in context, when you do your WS you say you were an occupant of the car (hence the letter saying X family were guests at the party) but not the driver. Just don't name the driver.


There's a risk that in court (if it ever got there, but CEL always withdraw at the time they have to pay the court fee) a judge may ask you who was driving. You can say "a family member". Some judges will agree it's not your obligation to provide a name, others might be a bit impatient and just ask who it was.


The risk is then that the PPC, if it loses against you, then issues proceedings against the driver. But you have good driver's defences anyway. In those circumstances, I would be asking the judge for his opinion on the driver defence points - ie no contract/contract complied with/not a term to have to sign in at reception desk of the relevant business premises. So that if the PPC did that, you could write and say that on x date the judge in case number x brought against RK said that they would not succeed in establishing a contract/that any contract had been breached.


This is a little academic in your case because it's CEL and so won't go to court, but I've mentioned it anyway because others may read this thread and find this information useful.

peter_the_piper

lorealv1 wrote: »

Thank you for your replies. I have now updaded the post. I didn't think I was identifying the driver but I have changed it anyway.



We cannot no longer take pictures from the site as the site doesn't exist anymore. All the industrial site plus the car park is being converting into flats.


Im planning to get a testimony from my friend who can affirm we were at the party therefore we were entitled to free parking. How do i send this as it has to be signed? would this go with my defense?


Thank you.

Just a thought, Google street view is sometimes a year or two out of date and could still show the parking and signs (if you're lucky)

nosferatu1001

You can go back through various photos on GSV - you can step back to previous ones theyve taken.

lorealv1

New defence draft here. I have taken into consideration all points and amemded accordingly. The defendant is my husband but im doing all the reaserch on his behalf. He was the register keeper, not admitting he was driving but saying he doesnt recall who it was. I'm sending this off this week, do i need to post it too or just e-mail this to court? do i need to send it to the claimaint too? Thank you





[FONT=&quot]Background - the driver was an authorised patron of .[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
1. The Claimant is in breach of CPR Part 16.4 because the Particulars of Claim contains only sparse details of what the claim is for and how it arose. The Defendant assumes that it relates to an alleged debt arising from the driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at xxx car park on xxx. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant £100 'parking charge' for the lawful conduct described below.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. The Defendant admits that he was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the relevant date however this was a shared vehicle with other family members and cannot recall being the driver on that day.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. The Defendant denies that the driver entered into any contract with the Claimant. In the alternative, if any such contract was entered into it is denied that the driver breached its terms.

4. The allegation appears to be that the 'vehicle was not authorised to use the car park' based on images by the Claimant's ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. The Claimant has produced no evidence of the absence of authorisation and the Defendant puts it to full proof thereof. The driver of the vehicle at the relevant time was a patron of xxx and it is averred that the driver was therefore authorised. The Defendant has witnesses who can testify that the driver was a patron of xxx.

5. No contract can have been formed between the driver and the Claimant because the Claimant's signage displayed on the land at the relevant time was hard to see, not obvious to users of the site and its wording was obscure.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6. Even if the Claimant's signs were capable of forming a contract with the driver, the terms and conditions displayed on the Claimant's signage were that patrons of xxx were entitled to park on the site for free while using its facilities and the driver, as a patron, therefore complied with any terms and conditions[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7. The date and time of the alleged breach of Terms was xxx. The day on this alleged breach meant no other business located at this industrial site was open for business and there were only a handful of cars in the car park, most of them belonged to friends of the driver who, like the driver, were attending a private party held at xxx, and none of whom received a parking ticket for parking at this site during the same or very similar hours.


8. The Claimant's signage stated that patrons of xxx (along with other businesses operating from the same site, but none of whom were open on the relevant date, which was a Sunday) were exempt from the obligation to purchase a ticket by machine or by telephone. The signage did not state that patrons had to take any further steps in relation to identifying themselves as patrons (eg by signing a registration form at the front desk and/or providing their vehicle registration number). Any such obligation cannot therefore have formed part of any contract formed between driver and the Claimant (which, for the avoidance of doubt, is denied). The Claimant is put to strict proof, with the bar being set by Denning LJ in J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] in the well-known 'Red Hand Rule' where hidden/unknown terms were held to be unenforceable: ''Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink...with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient.''


Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations - breach
9. Upon receiving the claim, the Defendant phoned xxx and had a fairly long conversation with one of the former Managers, who was unhappy to hear that the claimant was taking the defendant to court and expressed his disgust with the Claimant suing their patrons.

10. The requirement for the driver to complete a registration form in order to register him/herself as a patron of xxxwas not communicated to the driver on the Claimant's signage. Failing to alert a consumer of such a requirements, where the failure then leads to a substantial charge being claimed against the consumer, is a 'misleading omission' of material facts and the Claimant is in breach of the CPUTR. These breaches of the CPUTRs 2008 have led to an unfair PCN, which the Claimant has refused to cancel and this conduct by the Claimant has severely disadvantaged the Defendant.

No locus standi
11. Even if the Claimant is able to produce such a landowner contract, it is averred that there can be no legitimate interest arguable by the Claimant in this case. When the claimant unfairly ticketed a patron of xxxx, any commercial justification in the form of support by Kids Play for such unfair ticketing is absent. Indeed, the opposite is the case, with xxx supporting the Defendant and not the Claimant in this matter.


No 'legitimate interest' or commercial justification - Beavis is distinguished
12. Even if the Claimant is able to produce such a landowner contract, it is averred that there can be no legitimate interest arguable by the Claimant in this case. When Civil Enforcement Ltd, unfairly ticket a patron of xxx, any commercial justification in the form of support by xxx for such unfair ticketing is absent.

12.1. With no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant is fully aware that their claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail. This case is fully distinguished in all respects, from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the decision turned on a legitimate interest and clear notices.


Data Protection Act and BPA Code of Practice breach
13. This Claimant uses ANPR camera systems to process data but fails to comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information' (the ICO Code). This is both a specific Data Protection and BPA Code of Practice breach.

13.1. The ICO Code applies to all ANPR systems, and states that the private sector is required to follow it, in order to meet its legal obligations as a data processor. Members of the BPA are required to comply fully with the Data Protection Act (DPA) and all ICO rules and guidelines, as a pre-requisite of being able to use the DVLA KADOE system and in order to enforce parking charges on private land.

13.2. The Claimant's failures to comply include, but are not limited to the following, and the Claimant is put to strict proof otherwise on all counts:

i) Lack of an initial privacy impact assessment, and

ii) Lack of an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, considering concepts that would impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle, and

iii) Failure to regularly evaluate whether it was necessary and proportionate to continue using ANPR, together with a Registration Form as a secondary data processing system at this site, as opposed to a less privacy-intrusive method of parking enforcement (such as 'light touch' enforcement only at busy times, or manning the car park with a warden in order to consider the needs of genuine patrons), and

iv) Failure to prominently inform a driver in large lettering on clear signage, of the purpose of the ANPR system and the registration form system and how the data captured on both would be used, and

v) Lack of the 'Privacy Notice' required to deliver mandatory information about an individual's right of subject access, under the DPA. At no point has the Defendant been advised how to apply for, and what a data subject's rights are, to obtain all images and data held via a Subject Access Request from the Claimant.

9. This Claimant has therefore failed to meet its legal obligations and has breached principle 1 (at least) of the DPA, as well as the BPA Code of Practice.




Unconscionable and unrecoverable inflation of the 'parking charge'
10. In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported Solicitor's Costs of £50, which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant because the Claimant does not use solicitors, instead processing claims in-house.

10.1. Whilst £50 may be recoverable in an instance where a claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim, the claimant have not expended any such sum in this case. This Claimant has a Legal Team with salaried in-house Solicitors and it files hundreds of similar 'cut & paste' robo-claims per month, not incurring any legal cost per case. I put the Claimant to strict proof to the contrary.

11. The added 'legal' cost is in fact an artificially invented figure, which represents a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules and achieve double recovery. In Beavis, only the parking charge itself (£85) was pursued and the sum was scrutinised by the Supreme Court and held to already include a significant sum in profit; being a pre-set sum dressed up as a fee or charge agreed in contract. This was already significantly over and above the very minimal costs of operating an automated ticketing regime, and it was held that the claim could not have been pleaded as damages, and would have failed.

11.1. Similarly, in Somerfield a £75 parking charge was not held to be a penalty but a sum mentioned in the harassing letters of double that amount, almost certainly would be.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]12. The Claimant has added further charges to the original £100 charge. The Defendant denies that such further charges formed part of any contract formed between driver and the Claimant (which is, for the avoidance of doubt denied). Even if the Claimant is entitled to recover further charges, these are accounted for by the discounted element of the charge given for early payment being added back to the sum sought.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
13. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety and denies any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

I confirm that the facts in this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.


Name/signature

Date[/FONT]

lorealv1

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

This is so much better than the out of date CEL defences that get regurgitated.


So you are the Defendant? But another person was driving?


No, defendand was the keeper but saying he doesnt remember who was driving at the time.