£20+ per minute 'parking' charge!

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the House of Commons recently

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41 recently.

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Ares001

Very grateful for any advice or comment on my (as yet unformatted) Defence:

Acknowledgement. It is acknowledged that the Defendant, xxx, residing at xxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle (xxx).

Denial. It is denied that any ‘private parking charges’ are owed. Any debt is denied in its entirety.

Context. On xxx 2017, the Defendant was trying to orientate himself to a nearby parking area, immediately adjacent to the location in question. Having stepped away from the vehicle, to seek directions, he noted an attendant photographing his vehicle. The Defendant politely explained the situation and immediately offered to move the car. The Claimant’s own photographic evidence shows it took less than five minutes from the vehicle first being photographed to it exiting the site.

Rebuttal. This record of events was seemingly disregarded by both the Claimant and the International Parking Community (IPC); there has been no attempt by either party to engage with the Defendant in open-minded and constructive dialogue. Attempts to reject the initial £100 charge (and its £1.50 ‘processing charge’) have been consistently met with templated responses, all of which have demonstrated a blatant disregard for the facts. Such responses confirm online reporting that the IPC is a paper tiger lacking fairness, objectivity and common sense. The Defendant’s rebuttal is centred upon three issues:

Grace Period. The haste with which the charge was issued, and the overall timeframe for this entire incident, contravenes the IPC’s own Code of Practice (dated Jun 17) whereby, ‘Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site’. It also represents a wholly unwarranted and disproportionate (initial) charge of more than £20 per minute.

Parking Charge Notice. The notice issued by the Claimant is vague. It lacks pertinent information as to the Claimant’s grounds for the charge and fails to meet standard norms, merely providing an issue date / time and an ‘Amount Due’. This ‘amount’ comprises a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum. Aside from legitimate court fees, it is also submitted that supplementary legal fees / costs are also unsubstantiated, with neither explanation nor foundation. Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers; they demand an underpinning rationale. This Claimant has failed Lord Dunedin’s four tests for a penalty – which the Supreme Court found apposite in less complex cases, such as this.

The Notice simply states the charge was issued to the vehicle, ‘because it was parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a parking charge’. It provides no indication as to whether this is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or 'unpaid contractual fees'. The Claimant has therefore had to consider all eventualities. This has caused distress, cost valuable time and potentially denied a fair chance for an informed and properly considered defence. As a result, the Defendant respectfully requests permission to amend and / or supplement this interim submission – as may be required – following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant's case.

Precedence. The Claimant’s solicitors are renowned serial litigants. Their practices are characterised by templated responses, an absence of due diligence and flagrant opportunism. There has been a deplorable lack of professional scrutiny and objectivity. Automated charges act against the public interest and demonstrate contempt for legal process, as well as the Court itself. As at [date] HMCS have identified over #### similarly abject claims. The solicitor's conduct is believed to be the subject of an active investigation by the SRA. The Defendant also has reason to believe this claim will proceed without any supporting facts or evidence until the last permissible moment, thereby denying any real opportunity to present a reasoned and well-considered defence. The Defendant suggests that the use of small claims courts by parking companies in such a spurious, aggressive and automated manner is both invidious and malign; it is not something the legal system should be seen to support.

The circumstances resemble those cited by District Judge Cross, of St Albans County Court, on 20 Sep 16. That claim was struck out – without a hearing – due to Gladstones':

Incoherence;
Failure to comply with CPR16.4;
Inability to provide, ‘facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law'.

Summary. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable, speculative and vexatious and requires subsequent review, once further details are apparent. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts claimed. It is therefore requested that the Court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above.

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

Guys_Dad

The Grace period allows the driver to read the t&c and to decide whether to park or not. You need to state that is what you were doing when booked.

Quote the actual wording of the Code of Practice in your case. The judge may not be familiar with it.

Try this from the 2018 BPA Code of Practice here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_January_2018.pdf

13 Grace periods
13.1 If a driver is parking without your permission, or at
locations where parking is not normally permitted they
must have the chance to read the terms and conditions
before they enter into the parking contract with you. If,
having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but
choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with
a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be
bound by your parking contract.
13.2 If the parking location is one where parking is normally
permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable
grace period in addition to the parking event before
enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace
period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.

The time in that version defines what is reasonable. And if it is reasonable for BPA car parks, why would IPC ones be different.

Incorporate in your case.

Ares001

Thanks Guys Dad. A 'reasonable grace period'; that's the first time I've seen 'reason' enter the equation!

Ares001

'As at [date] HMCS have identified over #### similarly abject claims'.


Does anyone know how many claims have been identified by HMCS to date?

Coupon-mad

There hasn't been another FOI done since to ask the question, and it's not a key issue.

What is missing is:

a) distinguishing this case from the Beavis case, and

b) questioning the landowner authority to make contracts with drivers & sue, and

c) pointing out the signage (which was not seen) is in any event, forbidding, and that there was no consideration, nothing of value offered, therefore no contract, and

d) the fact that ticketing within minutes is predatory (another IPC CoP breach)

Such as in these ones:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74559238#Comment_74559238

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74507993#Comment_74507993

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74173393#Comment_74173393

Ares001

Thanks Coupan-mad - much obliged (particularly for the hyperlinked examples).

Will make amdts as suggested, but just to be clear, what's meant by 'forbidding' signage?

Umkomaas

Ares001 wrote: »

Thanks Coupan-mad - much obliged (particularly for the hyperlinked examples).

Will make amdts as suggested, but just to be clear, what's meant by 'forbidding' signage?

When there is no offer of parking to you. Such as 'Residents/Permit Holders only' which essentially renders you a trespasser. PPCs can't pursue anyone for trespass (unless the own the land), only the landowner can sue. This was a very clear statement emanating from Beavis.

Ares001

Clear - thanks Unkomaas.


Will edit the draft again shortly; grateful for any further points or recommendations.

Ares001

I'm finalizing my draft and editing it in-line with the comments already received.


If anyone has any further suggestions or comment, I'd be very grateful; your input's invaluable.