County Court Claim For for Parking ticket, advice

FlyGuyRM

Hi,

I often use forums to appeal PCN's when I believe they have been wrongfully issued.


I recieved a Claim Form from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton yesterday in regard to the ticket from over a year and a half ago.


The Claimant is UKCPM Ltd with Gladstones acting as their representitives.


I have spent a number of hours going through the forum for guidance and advice to this correspondence which has been very helpful.

I breifly parked in a new build residential estate, on a side curb with no marked lines and not in a parking permit only space whilst helping my friend and his young children with bags to his fourth floor apartment late in the evening.


By the time I had come back down (minutes later) I had been issued with a PCN. I saw the enforcement officer a short distance from my car (making sure not to make eye contact with me). I was furious but did not confront him. I decided to ignore the ticket and any further correspondence, which was very little.


I have completed the first steps and submitted the AoS.


Any advice on how best to construct a defence given the circumstance would be helpful? I have no photos or evidence of the alleged contravention.


I was encouraged to start a new Thread for case by case advice and support

Redx

all covered in post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread at the top of this forum, third thread down

also covered in dozens of similar threads on this forum so use suitable search words in the drop down forum search box to find them

read them, and follow the same advice, and plagiarise what they have put together in order to draft your own defence

after you have followed the AOS advice and acknowledged the claim on the MCOL website

you are not the first, you are one of dozens or hundreds going through the same thing


also google the JOPSON case and get the transcript and details from sites like PARKING PRANKSTER

FlyGuyRM

Thanks,

I will post my draft defence in the coming days and hope you and Coupon-mad can provide and relevant feedback.

Coupon-mad

Why not start with Johnersh's residential defence draft, that's why it's there in the NEWBIES thread.

FlyGuyRM

IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE

Claim Number: ___

Between:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT

(Claimant)

-V-

XXXXXXXXXXXX

(Defendant)

I assert that I am not liable to the claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all for the following reasons:

Preliminary

1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

1.1 The Claimant’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. HMCS have identified thousands of similar poorly pleaded claims.

1.2 The Defendant believes the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ 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.

2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct.

2.1 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.
2.2 The Defendant has discovered that the Claimant's Trade Body, the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), is an organisation operated by the same Directors as are/were recorded at Gladstones Solicitors, at least until very recently. They - John Davies and Will Hurley - are also responsible for the IAS.
2.3 Now the Defendant notes that Gladstones are employed in bringing this claim, demonstrating a clear conflict of interests.

Background
3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXXXX which is the subject of these proceedings.

4. It is admitted that the Defendant parked the vehicle on the material date, whilst escorting a young child to a private residential property. It is denied that there was any relevant obligation upon the Defendant that can have been breached. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
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.

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
6. It is denied that the Defendant was in breach of any parking conditions or was not permitted to park, in circumstances where the Tenancy Agreement does permit the parking of vehicle(s) on this land. An express permission to park had been granted to the defendant permitting the above vehicle be parked by the current occupier of XXXXXXX. The Defendant avers that there was at the very least, a prior and overriding grant of a licence to park, and indeed believes there was an absolute entitlement to park, deriving from the terms of the tenancy, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The tenancy terms provide residents with the right to park a vehicle on this private land, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or any reference to any 'undesignated bays'.

7. It is not admitted that the Claimant has contractual or other lawful authority to make contracts with residents or visitors at this location, and/or to bring proceedings against the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof. Further, and in the alternative, the Defendant avers that the Claimant requires the permission of the owner of the relevant land - not merely another contractor or site agent not in possession - in order to commence proceedings.

8. The Defendant avers that the Claimant cannot:
(i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors, or
(ii) offer parking on more onerous terms than were already granted and agreed in the lease/tenancy Agreement, or
(iii) decide to remove parking bays from use by residents and/or start charging for them.

9.1 Parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the tenancy. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.
No contract and no breach – the location where the vehicle was parked has never been ''undesignated'' nor was it clearly marked as such.
10. It is denied that there was any breach of contract or of any relevant parking terms. The Claimant's claim is wholly misconceived.
11. Accordingly it is denied that:
11.1. There was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant 11.2. There was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and 11.3. The Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
In the Alternative: Failure to set out clear parking terms - ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 distinguished

12 The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, insofar as the Court were only willing to exempt a parking charge from falling foul of the penalty rule which would normally render it unrecoverable, in the context of a site of commercial value, it being a 'complex' case where the driver was a visitor with no prior licence or rights, and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.

13.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his primary defence above, inadequate. 13.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation; 13.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and 13.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of existing residents, as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3

13.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. In fact, the existing rights of residents should have been protected.

13.3 The charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye v Beavis distinguished.

14. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

15. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against residents and law abiding motorist, alleging 'debts' for parking at their own homes or as guests with no alternative parking means is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

16. The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors, Gladstones, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centres in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).

17. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

18. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.


Signed

Date

Coupon-mad

We are trying to weed out much of the preliminary stuff and encourage people to put what the facts of the case are, near the top.

That's a good start but now search bargepole defence and read a recent concise one that he wrote that says 'the facts are' and use his intro instead of the above 'preliminary'.

[Deleted User]

This

.1 The Claimant’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. HMCS have identified thousands of similar poorly pleaded claims.

1.2 The Defendant believes the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ 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.

And this

2.1 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.
2.2 The Defendant has discovered that the Claimant's Trade Body, the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), is an organisation operated by the same Directors as are/were recorded at Gladstones Solicitors, at least until very recently. They - John Davies and Will Hurley - are also responsible for the IAS.
2.3 Now the Defendant notes that Gladstones are employed in bringing this claim, demonstrating a clear conflict of interests.

And this too

16. The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors, Gladstones, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centres in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).

Add absolutely nothing, but merely show you to be a bit cheesed off to have received a claim.

This:

The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

Is rarely going to happen (never say never) so I'd not bother asking - but it's up to you. You will normally need to apply and attend a hearing. If the particulars are rubbish the court is more likely to order that new amended particulars are served.

In theory this is possible,

The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).

but I doubt you have the arguments to justify it and many of these cases are successful for the claimant (most aren't defended) which kind of defeats the notion that the PPC is just running vexatious cases, unfortunately. It's noteworthy that there are less than 120 such orders covering E&W and it won't be a district judge making the order, too.

This

If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.

Is a good point, but is in my view better made as a defective pleading point - they should amend with more detail and a new defence be permitted. It's unlikely you'll get sequential exchange. Again, it's as likely as finding rocking horse poo.

...but other than that, it's fine

[Deleted User]

I should add, Paras 3 and 4 of my defence in the newbies section are where you set out background facts.

You should expand those as coupon mad suggests. You can't write an example suitable for the facts of everyone's case. Good luck with the edits!

FlyGuyRM

Thank you Coupon Mad and Johnersh for your points. I have created amended defence drafted based on your guidance.


I have to submit my defence by 13th September so would like to get it to an acceptable standard asap.


I hope this looks more like it. Please see below. (A LOT MORE CONCISE... I HOPE)








IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE

Claim Number: ___

Between:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT

(Claimant)

-V-

XXXXXXXXXXXX

(Defendant)

I (Defendant) assert that I am not liable to the claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all.





1. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in an unmarked area of the residential estate and had express permission from the tenant of XXXXXX to park in that location. The vehicle was parked on the material date, whilst the Defendant escorted a young child to a private residential property.





1.1 It is denied that there was any relevant obligation upon the Defendant that can have been breached. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established





1.2 The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. Theses assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action and is simply offering a menu of choices. The Claim fails to comply with the Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with the Civil Practice Direction 16, paras 7.3 to 7.5. As such the Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.





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





1.4 The terms of the Claimants signage are also too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position away from unmarked locations, approximately over seven feet high that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would need to stand directly in front of the sign to have any chance of reading it. It is therefore, denied that the Claimants signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract





2. The tenancy terms provide residents with the right to park a vehicle on this private land, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or any reference to any 'undesignated bays'.





3. It is not admitted that the Claimant has contractual or other lawful authority to make contracts with residents or visitors at this location, and/or to bring proceedings against the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof. Further, and in the alternative, the Defendant avers that the Claimant requires the permission of the owner of the relevant land - not merely another contractor or site agent not in possession - in order to commence proceedings.





4. 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 litigation.





5. The Defendant avers that the Claimant cannot:


(i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors, or


(ii) offer parking on more onerous terms than were already granted and agreed in the lease/tenancy Agreement, or


(iii) decide to remove parking bays from use by residents and/or start charging for them.






6. Accordingly it is denied that:


6.1. There was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant 6.2. There was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and 6.3. The Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.


In the Alternative: Failure to set out clear parking terms - ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 distinguished;





7. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, insofar as the Court were only willing to exempt a parking charge from falling foul of the penalty rule which would normally render it unrecoverable, in the context of a site of commercial value, it being a 'complex' case where the driver was a visitor with no prior licence or rights, and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.





7.1 The charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye v Beavis distinguished.





8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that a maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case GBP 100. The claim includes an additional GBP 60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.





9. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against residents and law abiding motorist, alleging 'debts' for parking at their own homes or as guests with no alternative parking means is not something the Courts should be seen to support.





10. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.





I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.








Signed





Date

System

The second draft is way better but there is a logical disconnect between 1.2 (embarrassing) and 5/6.

What was the issue the parking warden put on the ticket; what was on the Notice to Keeper; and what are they saying on the claim. Is it out of the bay or no permit or in a no-parking area? Also as a visitor you are one-step removed from the protection of the lease so what did the signs say about your despicable act of helping someone. Should you have been in a bay or showing a permit?

KeithP

What is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?


Also, if you have used your real name as your forum username you would be well advised to get it changed to something more anonymous.

To do that, read this short extract from The MSE Forum Guide - Frequently Asked Questions & Rules:

Q. How can I change my username?

A. In most circumstances, this is not permitted.

The only reason we will change your username is if it puts your privacy at risk. This usually means you've inadvertently registered using your name, email address or something that gives away your identity within your username.

If you fall into this category, email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com and request that it is changed, giving three alternative usernames in order of preference.