BW Legal - LBC?

System

An illustration of the difference between contract and trespass.

Long before people were parking cars, they were parking their backsides on deckchairs. On the promenade there would have been signs there that would say "1d for an hour". The signs were an invitation to contract but the contract could only be formed by the action of parking a backside on the chair. You can't contract by simply passing a sign, there has to be more.

If someone was there for a few minutes and left as the chair was uncomfortable, there still would be no contract as there was never an intent to contract. There was simply a trespass on the chair.

In your case, there was no parking in a space and no intent to take up a space. So no contract.

rsturbomad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Search the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye v Beavis for the word trespass, and you will find the Judges said that a parking firm who are not in possession of the land cannot pursue a matter of trespass (landowner only).

Many thanks Coupon. For others who may find this useful here is the section within the judgement for the Beavis case that Coupon is referring to: -

97. ParkingEye concedes that the £85 is payable upon a breach of contract, and that it is not a pre-estimate of damages. As it was not the owner of the car park, ParkingEye could not recover damages, unless it was in possession, in which case it may be able to recover a small amount of damages for trespass. This is because it lost nothing by the unauthorised use resulting from Mr Beavis overstaying. On the contrary, at least if the £85 is payable, it gains by the unauthorised use, since its revenues are wholly derived from the charges for breach of the terms. The notice at the entrance describes ParkingEye as being engaged to provide a “traffic space maximisation scheme”, which is an exact description of its function. In the agreed Statement of Facts and Issues, the parties state that “the predominant purpose of the parking charge was to deter motorists from overstaying”, and that the landowner’s objectives include the following:

“a. The need to provide parking spaces for their commercial tenants’ prospective customers;

b. The desirability of that parking being free so as to attract customers;

c. The need to ensure a reasonable turnover of that parking so as to increase the potential number of such customers;

d. The related need to prevent ‘misuse’ of the parking for purposes unconnected with the tenants’ business, for example by commuters going to work or shoppers going to off-park premises; and

e. The desirability of running that parking scheme at no cost, or ideally some profit, to themselves.”

IamEmanresu wrote: »

An illustration of the difference between contract and trespass.

Long before people were parking cars, they were parking their backsides on deckchairs. On the promenade there would have been signs there that would say "1d for an hour". The signs were an invitation to contract but the contract could only be formed by the action of parking a backside on the chair. You can't contract by simply passing a sign, there has to be more.

If someone was there for a few minutes and left as the chair was uncomfortable, there still would be no contract as there was never an intent to contract. There was simply a trespass on the chair.

In your case, there was no parking in a space and no intent to take up a space. So no contract.

Cheers IamEmanresu - that is a very good analogy.

So I have the following points in my defence below which point out the idea of Trespass. Do I need to expand on this?

13. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.

13.1. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers merely passing through the car park, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.

13.2.. As was confirmed in the Beavis case, the Claimant could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).

I shall post the entire defence separately.

Cheers all.
Turbo

rsturbomad

Here is the latest copy of my defence. I believe I am just about there. Your thoughts welcomed?

IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: CXXXXXX
BETWEEN:
<CLAIMANT>
-and-
<DEFENDANT>

__________________________________________________________________________

DEFENCE
__________________________________________________________________________

1. The Defendant, was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at <LOCATION>

1.1. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

2. The allegation appears to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper 'not purchasing the appropriate parking time.'

3. The Defendant had no idea about any ANPR surveillance and received no letters after the initial 'PCN' a vague document which gave no indication as to what the alleged breach actually was. No photographic evidence of the terms on signage has been supplied, not even in the postal PCN.

3.1. The Claimant is put to strict proof of any breach and of their decision-making in processing the data and the human intervention in deciding to issue a PCN and why, as well as the reasoning behind trying to collect an extortionate charge which is completely out of proportion, instead of a few pounds tariff, if it is their case that this sum went unpaid.

4. Under the GDPR, the Claimant is also put to strict proof regarding the reason for such excessive and intrusive data collection via ANPR surveillance cameras.

4.1 Silently collecting VRN data in order to inflate the 'parking charge' from a few pounds to £100 and write (weeks later) to registered keepers at their own homes - whether they were driving or not - is excessive, untimely and intrusive to registered keeper data subjects.

5. At the material time, the Claimant operated strictly subject to the June 2013 British Parking Association ('BPA') CoP, which said: Grace Periods:

13.1. “Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.”

13.2. “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”

5.1. The claimant is put to strict proof that the parking period was over 10 minutes as the Defendant denies this is likely for merely picking up passengers.

6. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer).

7. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. So the Defendant has had to cover all eventualities and this has denied them a fair chance to defend this in an informed way. The Defendant have asked questions in the form of a Part 18 request but have not received adequate answers nor all the information requested.

8. Due to the sparseness of the POC it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle breached any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

9. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and 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. Furthermore the Claimant's solicitors have been reported to the regulatory authority by ministers of parliament for unprofessional conduct. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim.

9.1 It is clear that the Claimant's solicitors are using templates with fundamental errors as per the following recent correspondence: -

“As established members of the Independent Parking Community, Our Client adheres to their Code of Practice for Private Enforcement on Private Land and Unregulated Car Parks (‘Code of Practice’). This Code of Practice gives recommendations in regards to the signage within the Car Park. The signs within the Car Park comply with the recommendations in the Code of Practice and are therefore deemed reasonable.”

Where actually the Claimant is a member of the British Parking Association. These errors question the reliability of their evidence, incompetence and waste of court time.

In further support of there being a want of cause of action:

10. The Defendant did not see any terms as they merely entered and exited the car park as a means to manoeuvre the vehicle safely, as opposed to attempting to complete a multi point turn on a very narrow and crowded road. The vehicle was stationary in the exit of the car park as they waited for family to enter the vehicle. Therefore the Defendant was given no fair chance to read any terms, so the elements of a contract and agreement on any (unknown) charge are absent. Where terms on a parking sign are not seen/known, then there can be no contract. I rely upon the case of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest; CA 5 APR 2000, a case won by the consumer on appeal where the Judges also found that clear entrance signs are expected.
BPA's CoP 18.5 “If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to
read the terms and conditions before they enter into the 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.”

10.1. In further support of the above the Defendant denies that the car was actually parked in a bay at all, or that any contract was entered into because the driver was only picking up passengers, which is an activity quite distinct from actually leaving the car in a parking space.

11. Any ‘charge’ or terms on signage on the day was not seen but even if the court believes signs were displayed, the terms were not sufficiently displayed as to be illegible, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

11.1. The Defendant adds that at the time of the event it was dark and any signage were not adequately lit.

12. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added solicitors fees 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 any event.

13. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.

13.1. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers merely passing through the car park, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.

13.2.. As was confirmed in the Beavis case, the Claimant could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).

14. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and patronising. As such, the Defendant is keeping note of their wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

15. The court is invited to strike out the claim, due to no cause of action nor prospects of success.

16. The Defendant believes the facts and information in this defence are true and the Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.

<SIGNATURE>
<DATE>

Coupon-mad

There is more about trespass in the Beavis decision than that:

Lord Mance at 190: Mr Beavis [...] was being given a licence, on conditions, and he would have been a trespasser if he overstayed or failed to comply with its other conditions. By promising ParkingEye not to overstay and to comply with its other conditions, Mr Beavis gave ParkingEye a right, which it would not otherwise have had, to enforce such conditions against him in contract.

But it may fairly be said that in the absence of agreement on the charge, Mr Beavis would not have been liable to ParkingEye. He would have been liable to the landowner in tort for trespass, but that liability would have been limited to the occupation value of the parking space.''

So if there had been no 'agreement on the charge' plus an implied 'promise' by the conduct of parking, ParkingEye could not have won.

rsturbomad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

There is more about trespass in the Beavis decision than that:




So if there had been no 'agreement on the charge' plus an implied 'promise' by the conduct of parking, ParkingEye could not have won.

Apologies yes there is a hell load more was just pointing out the part with regards to not being the landowner.

Ill adopt those points cheers.
Turbo

Coupon-mad

I think those quotes are more relevant than the first one, as they spell out that PE could not have claimed any money in the absence of agreement/promise (contract!).

rsturbomad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I think those quotes are more relevant than the first one, as they spell out that PE could not have claimed any money in the absence of agreement/promise (contract!).

Many many thanks again for the help. I have tweaked as follows in red. I have quoted the parts from the Beavis case with reference as I assume I should probably provide a copy of the Beavis case for the Judge to refer to?

IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: CXXXXXX
BETWEEN:
<CLAIMANT>
-and-
<DEFENDANT>

____________________________________________________________________________

DEFENCE
____________________________________________________________________________

1. The Defendant, was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at <LOCATION>

1.1. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

2. The allegation appears to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper 'not purchasing the appropriate parking time.'

3. The Defendant had no idea about any ANPR surveillance and received no letters after the initial 'PCN' a vague document which gave no indication as to what the alleged breach actually was. No photographic evidence of the terms on signage has been supplied, not even in the postal PCN.

3.1. The Claimant is put to strict proof of any breach and of their decision-making in processing the data and the human intervention in deciding to issue a PCN and why, as well as the reasoning behind trying to collect an extortionate charge which is completely out of proportion, instead of a few pounds tariff, if it is their case that this sum went unpaid.

4. Under the GDPR, the Claimant is also put to strict proof regarding the reason for such excessive and intrusive data collection via ANPR surveillance cameras.

4.1 Silently collecting VRN data in order to inflate the 'parking charge' from a few pounds to £100 and write (weeks later) to registered keepers at their own homes - whether they were driving or not - is excessive, untimely and intrusive to registered keeper data subjects.

5. At the material time, the Claimant operated strictly subject to the June 2013 British Parking Association ('BPA') CoP, which said: Grace Periods:

13.1. “Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.”

13.2. “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”

5.1. The claimant is put to strict proof that the parking period was over 10 minutes as the Defendant denies this is likely for merely picking up passengers.

6. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer).

7. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. So the Defendant has had to cover all eventualities and this has denied them a fair chance to defend this in an informed way. The Defendant have asked questions in the form of a Part 18 request but have not received adequate answers nor all the information requested.

8. Due to the sparseness of the POC it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle breached any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

9. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and 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. Furthermore the Claimant's solicitors have been reported to the regulatory authority by ministers of parliament for unprofessional conduct. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim.

9.1 It is clear that the Claimant's solicitors are using templates with fundamental errors as per the following recent correspondence: -

“As established members of the Independent Parking Community, Our Client adheres to their Code of Practice for Private Enforcement on Private Land and Unregulated Car Parks (‘Code of Practice’). This Code of Practice gives recommendations in regards to the signage within the Car Park. The signs within the Car Park comply with the recommendations in the Code of Practice and are therefore deemed reasonable.”

Where actually the Claimant is a member of the British Parking Association. These errors question the reliability of their evidence, incompetence and waste of court time.

In further support of there being a want of cause of action:

10. The Defendant did not see any terms as they merely entered and exited the car park as a means to manoeuvre the vehicle safely, as opposed to attempting to complete a multi point turn on a very narrow and crowded road. The vehicle was stationary in the exit of the car park as they waited for family to enter the vehicle. Therefore the Defendant was given no fair chance to read any terms, so the elements of a contract and agreement on any (unknown) charge are absent. Where terms on a parking sign are not seen/known, then there can be no contract. I rely upon the case of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest; CA 5 APR 2000, a case won by the consumer on appeal where the Judges also found that clear entrance signs are expected.
BPA's CoP 18.5 “If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to
read the terms and conditions before they enter into the 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.”

10.1. In further support of the above the Defendant denies that the car was actually parked in a bay at all, or that any contract was entered into because the driver was only picking up passengers, which is an activity quite distinct from actually leaving the car in a parking space.

11. Any ‘charge’ or terms on signage on the day was not seen but even if the court believes signs were displayed, the terms were not sufficiently displayed as to be illegible, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

11.1. The Defendant adds that at the time of the event it was dark and any signage were not adequately lit.

12. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added solicitors fees 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 any event.

13. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.

13.1. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers merely passing through the car park, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.

13.2. At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass.

13.3. Moreover, Lord Mance in the Beavis decision states: -
190. Mr Beavis [...] was being given a licence, on conditions, and he would have been a trespasser if he overstayed or failed to comply with its other conditions […] By promising ParkingEye not to overstay and to comply with its other conditions, Mr Beavis gave ParkingEye a right, which it would not otherwise have had, to enforce such conditions against him in contract.
Furthermore:-
107. […] But it may fairly be said that in the absence of agreement on the charge, Mr Beavis would not have been liable to ParkingEye. He would have been liable to the landowner in tort for trespass, but that liability would have been limited to the occupation value of the parking space.

14. 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 pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

14.1. It is suggested that this novel twist (unsupported by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 - the 'POFA') of placing hybrid notes stating 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice' on cars, then ambushing the registered keeper with a premature postal NTK, well before the timeline set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA, is unlikely to have been in the contemplation of the Claimant's principal.

14.2. It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, and as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor the other, and create no certainty of contract or charge whatsoever.

15. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and patronising. As such, the Defendant is keeping note of their wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

16. The court is invited to strike out the claim, due to no cause of action nor prospects of success.

17. The Defendant believes the facts and information in this defence are true and the Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.

<SIGNATURE>
<DATE>

Coupon-mad

This makes no sense for a NCP case, this is specific to VCS:

14.1. It is suggested that this novel twist (unsupported by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 - the 'POFA') of placing hybrid notes stating 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice' on cars, then ambushing the registered keeper with a premature postal NTK, well before the timeline set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA, is unlikely to have been in the contemplation of the Claimant's principal.

14.2. It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, and as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor the other, and create no certainty of contract or charge whatsoever.

rsturbomad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

This makes no sense for a NCP case, this is specific to VCS:

Doh, thanks Coupon. I shall amend.

Do you think it needs any further work? (minus spelling and grammar checks)

Cheers

rsturbomad

Hello Everyone,

I have until next Monday to submit my defence. I believe it is ready but would appreciate your thoughts before I go ahead. See below : -

IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: CXXXXXX
BETWEEN:
<CLAIMANT>
-and-
<DEFENDANT>

___________________________________________________________________________

DEFENCE
___________________________________________________________________________

1. The Defendant, was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at <LOCATION>

1.1. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

2. The allegation appears to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper 'not purchasing the appropriate parking time.'

3. The Defendant was not aware of any ANPR surveillance and received no letters after the initial 'PCN' a vague document which gave no indication as to what the alleged breach actually was. No photographic evidence of the terms on signage has been supplied, not even in the postal PCN.

3.1. The Claimant is put to strict proof of any breach and of their decision-making in processing the data and the human intervention in deciding to issue a PCN and why, as well as the reasoning behind trying to collect an extortionate charge which is completely out of proportion, instead of a few pounds tariff, if it is their case that this sum went unpaid.

4. Under the GDPR, the Claimant is also put to strict proof regarding the reason for such excessive and intrusive data collection via ANPR surveillance cameras.

4.1 Silently collecting VRN data in order to inflate the 'parking charge' from a few pounds to £100 and write (weeks later) to registered keepers at their own homes - whether they were driving or not - is excessive, untimely and intrusive to registered keeper data subjects.

5. At the material time, the Claimant operated strictly subject to the June 2013 British Parking Association ('BPA') CoP, which said: Grace Periods:

13.1. “Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.”

13.2. “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”

5.1. The claimant is put to strict proof that the parking period was over 10 minutes as the Defendant denies this is likely for merely picking up passengers.

6. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer).

7. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. So the Defendant has had to cover all eventualities and this has denied them a fair chance to defend this in an informed way. The Defendant has asked questions in the form of a Part 18 request but has not received adequate answers nor all the information requested.


8. Due to the sparseness of the POC it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle breached any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

9. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and 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. Furthermore the Claimant's solicitors have been reported to the regulatory authority by ministers of parliament for unprofessional conduct. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim.

9.1 It is clear that the Claimant's solicitors are using templates with fundamental errors as per the following recent correspondence: -

“As established members of the Independent Parking Community, Our Client adheres to their Code of Practice for Private Enforcement on Private Land and Unregulated Car Parks (‘Code of Practice’). This Code of Practice gives recommendations in regards to the signage within the Car Park. The signs within the Car Park comply with the recommendations in the Code of Practice and are therefore deemed reasonable.”

Where actually the Claimant is a member of the British Parking Association. These errors question the reliability of their evidence, incompetence and waste of court time.

In further support of there being a want of cause of action:

10. The Defendant did not see any terms as they merely entered and exited the car park as a means to manoeuvre the vehicle safely, as opposed to attempting to complete a multi point turn on a very narrow and crowded road. The vehicle was stationary in the exit of the car park as they waited for family to enter the vehicle. Therefore the Defendant was given no fair chance to read any terms, so the elements of a contract and agreement on any (unknown) charge are absent. Where terms on a parking sign are not seen/known, then there can be no contract. I rely upon the case of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest; CA 5 APR 2000, a case won by the consumer on appeal where the Judges also found that clear entrance signs are expected.
BPA's CoP 18.5 “If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to
read the terms and conditions before they enter into the 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.”

10.1. In further support of the above the Defendant denies that the car was actually parked in a bay at all, or that any contract was entered into because the driver was only picking up passengers, which is an activity quite distinct from actually leaving the car in a parking space.

11. Any ‘charge’ or terms on signage on the day was not seen but even if the court believes signs were displayed, the terms were not sufficiently displayed as to be illegible, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

11.1. The Defendant adds that at the time of the event it was dark and any signage were not adequately lit.

12. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added solicitors fees 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 any event.

13. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.

13.1. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers merely passing through the car park, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.

13.2. At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass.

13.3. Moreover, Lord Mance in the Beavis decision states: -
190. Mr Beavis [...] was being given a licence, on conditions, and he would have been a trespasser if he overstayed or failed to comply with its other conditions […] By promising ParkingEye not to overstay and to comply with its other conditions, Mr Beavis gave ParkingEye a right, which it would not otherwise have had, to enforce such conditions against him in contract.
Furthermore:-
107. […] But it may fairly be said that in the absence of agreement on the charge, Mr Beavis would not have been liable to ParkingEye. He would have been liable to the landowner in tort for trespass, but that liability would have been limited to the occupation value of the parking space.

14. 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 pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

15. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and patronising. As such, the Defendant is keeping note of their wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

16. The court is invited to strike out the claim, due to no cause of action nor prospects of success.

17. The Defendant believes the facts and information in this defence are true and the Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.

<SIGNATURE>
<DATE>


Cheers
Turbo