Court Claim for parking outside of marked bay

Rusty_C

Hi All,

Newbie here and looking for a bit advice if anyone could be kind enough to help please? I basically parked outside of a parking bay whilst helping a lorry driver and got a ticket, but due to a break down in communications I now have a court claim. Below is my statement which should provide you with information on the circumstances and below that is my defense statement. Any advice on whether I am wasting my time or if my statements will suffice?
Many thanks in advance for any help you can offer.

Defendant Witness Statement:
I (the defendant) was a student at *** University at the time of the alleged parking contravention (****). To enable me to fund my own education I worked part-time for a few hours a week at the **** Campus shop. As this was some distance from my accommodation, I applied for and was given a staff parking permit, which I used for every work shift. On the day of the alleged parking contravention I drove down the narrow entrance road towards the staff car park to start my shift at ***am, when I encountered a large lorry delivering stock to the shop I worked in. The lorry was blocking all of the car park spaces, so I rolled down my car window to ask the delivery driver if he was going to be much longer, to which he replied he was “struggling and running late so could be a while longer, but too long”. As he was blocking part of the road and other cars couldn't easily get into the car park, I offered to quickly park and help him unload, as the delivery was for my shop. I parked up next to his lorry against the wall and got out to help him. Although I couldn't park in a marked space (as none were available due to the lorry) I knew I would only be a few minutes and I wasn’t blocking any vehicular or pedestrian access route. This whole process took less than 10 minutes in total, but after I unloaded the last box into the store room, and locked up, I returned to put my car into a parking space I discovered a parking attendant putting a ticket on my car. I explained what I was doing, but she was extremely rude and aggressive and said I was parked inconveniently to others and I was blocking the lorry. I explained politely once again what the situation was and also pointed out the lorry was already driving away, thus clearly demonstrating that my parking was not causing any detriment to the lorry I was assisting. I believe the parking attendant to be aggressive and unreasonable. It was clear to anyone that I worked in the shop (because of my uniform) and also had a valid permit to park. It was also clearly evident that I was assisting the delivery driver and also had not parked inconveniently to any other car park users.
This statement can be corroborated by the following person, who was also working at the shop: *****

DEFENCE STATEMENT
I assert that I am not liable to the claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:
1. My stay in the car park (outside of a marked bay) was no longer than 10 minutes. My car was only parked outside of the bay to assist a delivery driver who was blocking the car park. My car was moved into a space as soon as the delivery lorry left the car park.
2. My car was not parked inconveniently to any other user, as the car park attendant’s photo should hopefully demonstrate, but I have not been provided with a copy of this.
3. I would like the court to know that if he could have appealed to the POPLA, I would have done so. Since I joined Kingston University I have not lived in my family home. We have an agreement whereby my family only forward important mail (anything in a brown envelope), but I do not receive anything else. This Court claim is the first notification I have received to make me aware of any issue since the date of the alleged parking contravention. The advice I received at the time from my boss at the shop was to ignore the incident as they had no authority and I had done nothing wrong.
4. It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.
5. The Claimant’s representatives, BW Legal, have fabricated the value of the Claim to a figure of £****. I had a valid parking permit and was not stopping any other car from entering or leaving the car park, so no loss has actually taken place. I submit the costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts, as part of their robo-claim litigation model, in an attempt at double recovery, circumventing the Small Claims costs rules.
6. The Claimants solicitors BW Legal 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. Further, BW Legal appear to be in contravention of the Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct. Robo-Claims are against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers.
7. The claim form itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the claimant’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. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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. This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Magistrates 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 Magistrates found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.
10. 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.
11. In order to issue parking charges, 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. No evidence of such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant. A Managing agent is not the Landowner.
12. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.
13. 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.

Coupon-mad

You don't file a Witness Statement yet.

See the NEWBIES thread for what to do first, AOS online, then defence, then what happens after that (Ws and evidence comes later).

Your defence needs a statement of truth, and the usual headers, and it's not a DEFENCE STATEMENT, it's just a DEFENCE. And it needs changing to the third person throughout, like in all the defence examples in the NEWBIES thread: 'The Defendant avers that... (not 'I, me').

Which PPC?

Rusty_C

Thank you. I have already filed the AOS online, I am just preparing the next stage. I have laid it out as per instructions/template within another MSE parking thread, but I have led with the witness statement so the circumstances can be read on here first. The other thread said it had to be read as in first person throughout, so it is things like this I need clarification on.

The company raising this is Total Parking solutions who operate a very heavy handed approach on the university campus.

Rusty_C

Okay, so thank you very kindly for your advice. I have reworded, is this looking better?

DEFENCE
I assert that I am not liable to the claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:
1. The defendant’s stay in the car park (outside of a marked bay) was no longer than 10 minutes. The car was only parked outside of the bay to assist a delivery driver who was blocking the car park. The car was then moved into a space as soon as the delivery lorry left the car park.
2. The defendant’s car was not parked inconveniently to any other user, as the car park attendant’s photo should hopefully demonstrate, but the defendant has not been provided with a copy of this.
3. The defendant would like the court to know that if he could have appealed to the POPLA, he would have done so. Since he joined **** University he has not lived in his family home. His family have an agreement whereby they only forward important mail (anything in a brown envelope), but he does not receive anything else. This Court claim is the first notification he has received to make him aware of any issue since the date of the alleged parking contravention. The advice he received at the time from his boss at the shop was to ignore the incident as they had no authority and he had done nothing wrong.
4. It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.
5. The Claimant’s representatives, BW Legal, have fabricated the value of the Claim to a figure of £****. The defendant had a parking permit and was not stopping any other car from entering or leaving the car park, so no loss has actually taken place. I submit the costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts, as part of their robo-claim litigation model, in an attempt at double recovery, circumventing the Small Claims costs rules.
6. The Claimants solicitors BW Legal 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. Further, BW Legal appear to be in contravention of the Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct. Robo-Claims are against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers.
7. The claim form itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the claimant’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. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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. This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Magistrates 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 Magistrates found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.
10. 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.
11. In order to issue parking charges, 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. No evidence of such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant. A Managing agent is not the Landowner.
12. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.
13. 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.

Defendant Witness Statement:
I (the defendant) was a student at **** University at the time of the alleged parking contravention (****). To enable me to fund my own education I worked part-time for a few hours a week at the **** University Campus shop. As this was some distance from my accommodation, I applied for and was given a staff parking permit, which I used for every work shift. On the day of the alleged parking contravention I drove down the narrow entrance road towards the staff car park to start my shift at ****, when I encountered a large lorry delivering stock to the shop I worked in. The lorry was blocking all of the car park spaces, so I rolled down my car window to ask the delivery driver if he was going to be much longer, to which he replied he was “struggling and running late so could be a while longer, but too long”. As he was blocking part of the road and other cars couldn’t get into the car park, I offered to quickly park and help him unload, as the delivery was for my shop. I parked up next to his lorry against the wall and got out to help him. Although I couldn’t park in a marked space (as none were available due to the lorry) I knew I would only be a few minutes and I wasn’t blocking any vehicular or pedestrian access route. This whole process took less than 10 minutes in total, but after I unloaded the last box into the store room, and locked up, I returned to put my car into a parking space I discovered a parking attendant putting a ticket on my car. I explained what I was doing, but she was extremely rude and aggressive and said I was parked inconveniently to others and I was blocking the lorry. I explained politely once again what the situation was and also pointed out the lorry was already driving away, thus clearly demonstrating that my parking was not causing any detriment to the lorry I was assisting. I believe the parking attendant to be aggressive and unreasonable. It was clear to anyone that I worked in the shop (because of my uniform) and also had a valid permit to park. It was also clearly evident that I was assisting the delivery driver and also had not parked inconveniently to any other car park users.
This statement can be corroborated by the following person, who was also working at the shop:
****
I attach for your information a simple plan showing the immediate vicinity of the car park and the university campus. I hope this demonstrates the situation I encountered and how the parking was not inconvenient to any other users.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

Coupon-mad

In the County Court

Claim Number: *******

Between
xxxxxxx xxxxx (Claimant)

v

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx (Defendant)


DEFENCE

The Defendant is [STRIKE]I assert that I am[/STRIKE] not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all. [STRIKE]for the following reasons:[/STRIKE]

Preliminary
1. The Defendant is prejudiced by the sparse Particulars of Claim, which lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Claimant fails to refer to the material terms of any contract and fails to comply with the CPR in respect of statements of case, or the relevant practice direction.

1.1. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation. The Claimant has not so much as even furnished the Defendant with their photographs of the alleged parking event.

Background
2. [STRIKE]The defendant!!!8217;s stay in the car park (outside of a marked bay) was[/STRIKE] The Claimant is a private parking company whose operative issued a Parking Charge Notice ('PCN') during the few minutes it took the Defendant to assist a lorry driver making a delivery to the University Campus Shop where the Defendant was working.

2.1. The car was temporarily stopped beside the lorry to assist a delivery driver who was blocking the car park entrance. The Defendant pulled over not to park, but in order to clear the obstruction the lorry was causing that prevented the Defendant's car, and all other cars arriving, from entering the adjacent staff car park.

2.2. The car was then moved into a staff parking space with the authorised permit displayed, as soon as the delivery lorry left the area.

2.3. The Defendant was alarmed to find a predatory parking attendant had issued a PCN, despite the fact she could see the unloading taking place and was informed that the Defendant was a staff member who had no option but to either wait in the car, in the middle of the entrance road (which would have added to the obstruction) or briefly pull over and help the lorry driver. The Defendant reasonably chose the latter, since the lorry was delivering to the Campus Shop where the Defendant worked to help fund his University education, and the sooner the activity was concluded, the sooner the lorry could leave.

2.4. Issuing PCNs in a predatory manner and without allowing at least ten minutes 'grace period' is a breach of the Claimant's Trade Body Code of Practice ('CoP'). Full compliance with that CoP is a pre-requisite of the DVLA rules on release of registered keeper data to parking firms, and in 2015 the Supreme Court referred to such a CoP as a strict regulatory framework.

2.5. The alleged debt as described in the claim is an unenforceable penalty, being just the sort of unconscionable charge exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. This case can be easily distinguished from that case, where the Supreme Court also remarked that private PCNs cannot be issued merely to punish a driver.

2.6. The Beavis case confirms that a purely punitive and indeed, unconscionable charge like this one, with no legitimate interest or commercial justification to excuse it, will undoubtedly fall foul of the penalty rule, against which all private parking charges must still be tested.

3. The Defendant would like the court to know that if he could have appealed to [STRIKE]the[/STRIKE] POPLA (the independent appeals service), he would have done so. Since he joined **** University he has not lived in his family home. His family have an agreement whereby they only forward important mail (anything in a brown envelope), but he does not receive anything else until the end of the academic year, and the claimant's letters had the appearance of junk mail. This Court claim is the first notification the Defendant has received to make him aware of any issue since the date of the alleged parking contravention.

3.1. The advice that the Defendant received at the time from his boss at the shop was to ignore the incident, because the parking firm had no authority to issue the PCN merely to punish the unselfish and sensible actions of a staff member arriving for their shift and finding the road blocked. Pulling over to assist with unloading, to remove the immediate obstruction of the lorry and thus ensure traffic could flow into the car park, did not breach any parking terms.

4. It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event. The Defendant did not have the opportunity to agree to parking terms when briefly stopping as described, and would not have agreed to pay £100 as punishment for effectively doing the job of the parking operative in acting to assist with the free movement of traffic and to remove a temporary authorised obstruction.

5. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement, and even if the Claimant has a contract for parking management in the car parks, it cannot possibly be the intention of the University to authorise or support this kind of predatory PCN.

5.1. The Claimant cannot suggest that it was unaware of the true circumstances. Their own operative watched the Defendant pull over to assist with the unloading and knew exactly what was unfolding, and when questioned by the Defendant after she issued the PCN she was rude and aggressive.

5.2. The Defendant requires that the parking operative attends the hearing as a key witness to be questioned about her intentions and conduct on the material day, and to explain why she issued a predatory PCN, contrary to the Trade Body CoP.

5.3. If the employee believed there was an obstruction, then it was plainly the lorry, and the Defendant questions why a PCN was issued silently behind his back, to the car, but not to the lorry. If unloading is allowed, then the car driver was also undertaking the same exempt activity.

5.4. It is averred that the operative was either a rogue employee with no inclination to understand the true concept of parking management, or that she was simply not trained properly in the CoP. The Defendant should have the opportunity to question the Claimant's operative at the trial in person.

6. When Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because the Claimant's solicitors operate a robo-claim model, churning millions of cases with no checks made, nor evidence supplied to Defendants, before filing claims.

6.1. Evidence is not supplied by BW Legal until a routine ambush at witness statement stage, and in this case, the Defendant has not even seen so much as a photograph thus far and will be prejudiced if required to file a witness statement 'blind'.

7. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to striking out the claim on the Court's own initiative, as having no merit, no particulars of claim, no reasonable prospects of success, and given that the claim is based on an alleged contractual parking charge of £100. The amount claimed on the claim is £xxx.xx and the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

8. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.


signature

date

You don't file any attachments or evidence at this stage.

Later at DQ stage, when you come to put down the number of Witness Statements you will be filing, put '2' because there will be your own and that of your boss. You can't just name him/her and say that details can be obtained from them, you need to prepare a detailed WS (with the location, time, date, your VRN and what happened) and put it under their nose to sign & date, under a statement of truth.

Rusty_C

I'm sorry to chase, but is there anyone here who could help me please? Have I made mistake in contesting this and if not is my defense okay?

nosferatu1001

Im not sure what more help you need. C-M just gave it to you all on a plate.

The_Deep

Some judges might regard this as a trifling matter, and the Law does not concern itself with trifles.

http://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.page

so this might well never get in front of a judge., especially as more and more are realising that such claims are invariably a scam. Watch the video and complain to your MP.

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.

Rusty_C

Many many thanks for this Coupon-Mad, it is very much appreciated. I'm in way out of my depth on these things, so I'm extremely grateful for your help.
With regards to the next stage, do they request my defense or do I just have to submit it nearer the time?

Rusty_C

For some reason Coupon-Mad's comprehensive reply wasn't there when I posted my follow-up request. I'm not sure if it's my Internet connection or the website but I'm having problems loading it up properly in the last couple of days. Having now read the reply, it is just what I needed.

KeithP

What is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?