Excel parking charge notice

Redx

Use everything you can , what you said above plus abuse of process , signage , check the concise defence by bargepole and add on abuse of process , inadequate signage , no landowner contract etc

Read other excel and VCS defences from this year and get the gist , possibly adapting one , the post the draft below for critique

If you haven't emailed a SAR yet , then do so

Also start preparing your WS plus your costs schedule too

dufflers

I spoke to the rep after, she was actually quite agreeable (apart from literally being a soulless harpy).

I asked the judge for a copy of their WS and particulars, he said that they should send all documents to me within 14 days, and that i will get another 7 to respond and send in my defence/WS
I'm expecting a DQ

Loadsofchildren123

dufflers wrote: »

Ok, the DJ seemed pretty reasonable and even talked me through the next stages based on my clearly limited knowledge of the procedure, I'll keep that in mind if they play games.

I'm looking at defences now to get a few reviews on it all, do you think the landowner authority is the way to go or should I focus mainly on their unreasonable behaviour sine the DJ agreed with me that it was out of order?

I'd rely more on the fact that you paid, made an error with the reg number and that your error was de minimis and once you had notified them they should have cancelled the pcn. The court should not be troubled with such trifling matters, you paid and can show you did. You made a human error, but substantively complied with the main contractual terms, which were to pay and park in a marked bay.

I don't know what case there is on landowner authority, but I think the de minimis defence is stronger. I know others have lost cases in this particular carpark so I don't think landowner authority will get you far, unless you find out something others haven't. Excel check this carpark like mad, it's a real money spinner for them, so my thinking is all the local judges will have heard small claims about this carpark before and will just shoe in the landowner issue and say they have authority.

dufflers

DJ did say he's seen a few people defending claims from my place of work.. Ok that's fair enough I'll stick to the main point of paying for the ticket, thanks LoC.

Red, I'll make it as comprehensive as I can and frame it around the ticket proof, thank you

Redx

Make the points by loc123 above the main crux of the defence , the rest is add-ons that could fail , whereas what loc123 said remains your strongest defence and strongest arguments , plus abuse of process regarding any spurious charges

nosferatu1001

Indeed, well done and wow, thats a poorly advised Rep for sure!

I would do as advised about telling them you intend to claim your full costs for their unreasonable behaviour.

But tht isnt a defence to the underlying charge, so as advised concentrate in your defence on the substantial compliance with the parking contract offered, that any error was so small as to be trivial and certainly the alleged claim is far out of all proportion.

dufflers

Ok so here is my defence, please let me know if anything should be expanded on, or if i missed anything, just to be clear, Im assuming that the details of costs for unreasonable behaviour should be in my WS, along with them attempting to deny the set aside for no reason? Or if anyone could help me with wording that into my defence that would be great

COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

(Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.


2. The vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXXX, of which the Defendant is the driver, was parked on the material day correctly within a designated bay and a ‘virtual permit’ was purchased via the RingGo mobile app. Proof of payment in the form of a screenshot of the transaction was supplied to the Claimant at their internal appeal stage.


3. Any alleged breach of contract was entirely de minimis, as parking was fully paid for. The Claimant is fully aware that parking was correctly and completely paid for. The law does not concern itself with trifling matters.


4. The particulars of claim state that the vehicle XXXXXXX incurred the charge for breaching the terms of parking on the land at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and a ‘Fixed Charge Notice (FCN) was issued. The ‘FCN’ stated the contravention as 'Failure to clearly display a valid ticket/permit’ and this contravention is denied. The Defendant denies liability for the purported parking charge (penalty), not least because it is already common ground that the correct parking charge (tariff) had already been paid but also because the cashless system provides no physical ticket or permit to display so the defendant was unable to comply with the alleged breach.


5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the Claimant’s signage sets out the terms and conditions in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. The important requirement of entering a correct or indeed any VRN for a valid ‘virtual permit’ should be made clear to patrons in prominent lettering and that failure to do so would incur a parking charge of £70.


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, therefore, it is 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 costs on the claim are both disproportionate and disingenuous
- CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

9. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.


10. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.


11. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.


12. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.


13. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.


14. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''


15. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.


16. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.


17. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.


18. 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. As such, 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 believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

dufflers

Also, would this be an appropriate email for excel?

Dear Sirs,

I am writing to you in reference of the recent hearing regarding your claim and subsequent default judgement against me.

This is a notice that if you proceed with a claim against me, according to DDJ, I will be awarded costs for my £255 set aside fee. I will also be asking for all of my costs at the LiP rate, pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g) for several reasons:
The judgement was awarded in my favour
DDJ specifically stated that when I provide evidence that you knew my address had changed that I would also be awarded costs
You could clearly have consented to a set aside without the need for a hearing, but didn't. Your conduct is therefore entirely unreasonable, compounded by the fact that your representative at today's hearing did not have any of the paperwork relating to the application and was not even aware that it was a set aside hearing and not a substantive hearing
I was shown your witness statement and evidence documents pertaining to the claim by your representative but not given a copy, I would like you to sent all of the particulars as soon as possible in order to defend myself appropriately.

Le_Kirk

Don't forget ALL paragraphs in a defence require a number (simple numbering is preferred).

Coupon-mad

I am soooo fed up and frustrated that we keep having waste time in stating that glaringly obvious point about paragraph numbers. So much so that it makes me want to delete the entire post about abuse of process if people can't see it needs numbers, even though it says there it does...