Defence of County Court Claim Form for parking

Bigboppa

Hi
Recently received a claim form and need to sort a defence. (They left it 6 months from last contact threatening court action)

already completed the acknowledgement of service.

The particulars of claim are
the driver of the vehicle registration ******* (the vehicle) incurred the parking charge(s) on **/**/2017(date) for breaching the terms of parking on the land at ***** retail park ********.*********
The Defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle.

And the claimant claims £*** for parking charges / damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £*.** pursuant to s69 of the county courts act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to judgement at £*.** per day.


Any help/advice would be much appreciated. Thankyou

System

I have recently received a claim form and need to sort a defence

Yes you are correct you do need a defence and soon.

There is a variety available which can be accessed using the search facility at the tip of the page.

Or you can use one of the speculative ones you'll be offered that bares no relation to the facts that you haven't shared with us.

How many guesses do we get on the facts surrounding the issue?

Quentin

Everyone is politely asked to read up on this in the Newbies FAQ thread near the top of the forum before starting a new thread

Go there now for comprehensive advice on how to deal with court claims.

See #2 in the FAQ

Bigboppa

It was for parking not fully within a bay due to the car adjacent being parked right up to the line. It was a free car park, It was in an end bay so was onto the white hashed area about a foot if that, it did not affect anyone else parking or driving within the car park and was not obstructing a walkway or anything like that. Solicitors have failed to mention the reason in the particulars. It would not have been possible to get out of the car and the other car would not have been able to open their boot if stayed within the bay. an aerial view of the two spaces would look like an L shape so the drivers door was inline with the rear of the other vehicle.

Quentin

Assuming that you have not revealed who was driving you need to edit your posts to remove details of who was driving

The ppcs monitor this forum and can use posts in your thread against you

Coupon-mad

You haven't said which PPC, and which solicitor (Gladstones, BW Legal or SCS Law?) nor have you said you've now read the NEWBIES thread post #2 and done the AOS and seen the example defences.

Come back when you have done that, and show us your draft defence.

Bigboppa

Hi I have read the newbies thread post 2 and done the AOS and seen example defences.


It is HX car park management and Gladstones Solicitors.


The particulars they sent do not state the actual breech, just a blanket "breaching the terms of parking on the land".


Do I need to base the defence on the blanket particulars ? Or should I base it on that it is a de minimis due to the fact that it was so minor and that it did not affect anybody else from parking or using the car park and caused no loss of income to the parking company or business and it did not affect anyone.




Found this one and edited it slightly.

1. It is acknowledged that the defendant, xxx, residing at xxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

2. It is denied that any "parking charges or indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in it's entirety. The date of the alleged incident is XX/XX/2016 as per the particulars of claim which is over 11 months ago.
I am perpelexed as to why the Claimant waited until now to bring proceedings.



3. The claim form itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the claimant!!!8217;s case. The particulars of claim fail to meet CPR16.4 and PD16 7.3-7.5 and merely provide a date, due date, and an "amount" consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors.
The claim also states "parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable" which gives no indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'.
Because of this, I have had to cover all eventualities in defending such a 'cut & paste' claim which has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.
Therefore, as an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant's case.

4. The Claimant!!!8217;s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action.
HMCTS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.
I believe the term for such conduct is !!!8216;robo-claims!!!8217; which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers.
I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

5.
It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to HX Car Park Management, and no proof has been provided.

6. In the pre court stage the Claimant!!!8217;s solicitor refused to provide me with the necessary information I requested in order to defend myself against the alleged debt.
They did not send me a Letter before Action that complied with the Practice direction on pre-action conduct. The Letter before Action can be seen to miss the following information
a) A clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.
b) A list of the relevant documents on which your client intends to rely.
c) How the !!!8220;charge amount!!!8221; of 160 pounds has been calculated and justified.
d) Any form of possible negotiation or ADR offered.
7
. I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.
8
. The alleged debt as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

9. This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes.
Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.

10. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court.

11. It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.

12. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. The signs were insufficient in terms of their distribution particularly on the enterance, wording and lighting hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
a) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) site/entrance signage - breach of the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
b) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
c) The signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
d) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
e) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.

13. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.
It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.
As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

14. I request the court strike 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''.

Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

System

Take out 4. What the solicitors do is irrelevant. They only present what they are given by their client.

You can make comments about the claimant but not the solicitor.

#3 also looks dodgy as the court is looking to you to narrow the issues and not "cover all eventualities".

You should answer the particulars - not what you think they are going to say. That can be dealt with later when you see a WS.The only relevant paragraphs I can see are 1, 2, 3 (part), 6 (if true), 9 and 11.

You can hone those rather than repeat (12) or put in nonsense 3, 4, and 7.

Bigboppa

Is this any better ??

1. It is acknowledged that the defendant, xxx, residing at xxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

2. It is denied that any "parking charges / damages and indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in it's entirety. The date of the alleged incident is XX/XX/2017 as per the particulars of claim which is over 11 months ago.
I am perpelexed as to why the Claimant waited until now to bring proceedings.



3. The claim form itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the claimant!!!8217;s case. The particulars of claim fail to meet CPR16.4 and PD16 7.3-7.5 and merely provide a date, due date, and an "amount" consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors.
The claim also states "parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable" which gives no indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'.
Because of this, I have had to cover all eventualities in defending such a 'cut & paste' claim which has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.
Therefore, as an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant's case.



4.
It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim.
a) The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
b) The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
c) The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.

5. In the pre court stage the Claimant!!!8217;s solicitor refused to provide me with the necessary information in order to defend myself against the alleged debt.
They did not send me a Letter before claim that complied with the Practice direction on pre-action conduct. The Letter before Action can be seen to miss the following information
a) Include details of the breach of contract.
b) A list of the relevant documents/evidence on which your client intends to rely.
c) Failure to set out any claim for interest charges. of which they are know claiming .
8% pa.

6. This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes.
Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.

7. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court.

8. It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.


9. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.
It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.
As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

10. I request the court strike 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''.

Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Coupon-mad

11 months is relatively quick for this scam to reach a claim, so change the start:

1. It is acknowledged that the defendant [STRIKE], xxx, residing at xxx[/STRIKE] is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

2. It is denied that any "parking charges / damages and indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of Claim ('POC') are owed and any debt is denied in it's entirety. The POC fail to state anything about the alleged breach of terms. [STRIKE]The date of the alleged incident is XX/XX/2017 as per the particulars of claim which is over 11 months ago.
I am perpelexed as to why the Claimant waited until now to bring proceedings. [/STRIKE]

I would change #3 to state the background of what you know:

3. Notwithstanding the failure of the POC to state any detail, the Defendant is aware that there was one unfair parking charge notice (PCN) affixed to this vehicle in 2017, where the PCN was punitive and appeared to be no more than a predatory scam, with narrow bays painted in an awkward shape and angle at the end, for no more reason than seemingly, to entrap motorists.

3.1. The car adjacent to this vehicle was parked right up to the line, causing the driver to have to place the car carefully and courteously alongside, albeit at a slight angle. It would not have been possible to get out of the car, and the other car would not have been able to open their boot, if the vehicle had been parked right up against the white line. It is an unusual angle for cars to park at anyway, and an aerial view of the two spaces would look like an L shape, so the driver's door was in line with the rear of the other vehicle.

3.2. This exact situation was briefly touched upon by the Judges at the Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the concept of ticketing cars for having to park at an angle due to the line of the first car in the row, was considered to be potentially unfair, but that was not the situation so the discussion moved on to consider the facts of the case and whether the charge at hand was unconscionable or justified, as must always be considered with any PCN, on a case-by-case basis.

3.3. However, the Supreme Court Judges stated that the penalty rule was undoubtedly engaged in all parking charge cases and the Beavis case charge was only saved from being held to be an unrecoverable and unconscionable penalty, due to the compelling commercial justification of the value of offering a licence for '2 hours free' parking in that busy retail park and the necessity to ensure a regular turnover of bays. None of this applies in this case and the Defendant avers this charge is punitive and not saved by any compelling legitimate interest, which cannot be to punish drivers.

This - below - is wrong as it says 'me' and 8% interest is normal so remove that, and did G's actually REFUSE to provide you with stuff and not send a LBC, I doubt that!

5. In the pre court stage the Claimant's solicitor refused to provide [STRIKE]me[/STRIKE] the Defendant with the necessary information in order to [STRIKE]defend myself[/STRIKE] make an informed decision about [STRIKE]against[/STRIKE] the alleged debt.
[STRIKE]They did not send me a Letter before claim that complied with the Practice direction on pre-action conduct.[/STRIKE] The Letter before Action [STRIKE]can be seen to miss[/STRIKE] omitted the following information
a) Include details of the breach of contract.
b) A list of the relevant documents/evidence on which the Claimant [STRIKE]your client[/STRIKE] intends to rely.
[STRIKE]c) Failure to set out any claim for interest charges. of which they are know claiming 8% pa.[/STRIKE]

Finally, if you were the driver, decide NOW if you are going to defend at the hearing as the driver, with specific knowledge of how the car was parked in a courteous way to other drivers and without obstruction (how would you know all that if you were not in the car, the Judge might ask).

If you were not the driver, add in the usual 'no keeper liabilty and POFA statements about HX's non-POFA wording, as foudn in any other HX no keeper liability defence (search the forum for those keywords and you will find some HX defences with that wording).

Up to you.

A hard one to decide because one person ('stevey') last month, lost as a lay rep in court v HX, purely because the D, his wife, admitted to being the driver in front of a Judge who we knew from a previous case, understood about 'no keeper liability' and would have found the NTK wanting...

Yet, you have a case to argue about de minimis and parking courteously and the odd 'L shape' of the end bay, routinely (probably) pushing cars out to overhang a strategically placed white hatching. So on balance, you might find it easier to defend as driver, if you were.

When it comes to your WS and evidence, I would use a Google Street aerial View of that car park and show with lines where the car was parked and how it looks.

The_Deep

Take out 4. What the solicitors do is irrelevant. They only present what they are given by their client.

I disagree, if the solicitors are known, (or believed), to be acting without the best interests of the court or the justice system, then it should, in my opinion, be mentioned. Especially if similar cases have been thrown out by judges in the past.


t