Parking Lie County Court Claim

Safari_1891

Background
A number of months ago i received a letter from Parking Eye with a really bad picture of the front of my car/reg plate. They claimed i owed them money as i failed to purchase a ticket in a car park i used. I foolishly ignored letters as i though it to be a scam.
Anyway i now have a County Claim from Northampton Business centre. They claim i was captured arriving and leaving without a valid paid parking ticket
I have since been back to the car park in question and on entrance to car park there is no clear sign indicating it is a pay and display car park. The small sign that is there is obscured by a branch and i have photos to show this the sign is tiny and pathetic it wasn't made clear it was pay and display i was in a rush i didn't see signs.
I have submitted my AOS and have till end month to file , I've read Newbies thread and drafted the following defence from what i have found on here... Any thoughts greatly welcomed.

1. 1. The Claim Form issued on the xxxxxx 2018 by Parking Eye Ltd was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person. The claim does not have a valid signature and is not a statement of truth. It states that it has been issued by !!!8220;Parking Eye Limited!!!8221; as the Claimant!!!8217;s Legal Representative. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by a person holding a senior position and state the position. If the party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth but in his own name and not that of his firm or employer.


2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. And as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.

a) There was no compliant !!!8216;Letter before County Court Claim!!!8217;, under the Practice Direction.

b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

c) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.

d) The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Claim form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs.

e) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

f) Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;

(i) Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
(ii) A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage on entrance to the car park)
(iii) How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of clear signage maps in place at the time)
(iv) Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
(v) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
(vi) If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
(vii) If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed

g) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.

3. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict !!!8216;keeper liability!!!8217; provisions.!

Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not as there was no clear, transparent information about how to obtain a ticket either inside or outside the site. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when there is evidently no clear adequate signage on entrance to the site.

4. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 'legal representative!!!8217;s (or even admin) costs' were incurred. As stated in point 1 above the claim is evidently a computer generated print out. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.!

5. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr. Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

6. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

a) The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.

b) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.!

c) Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

(i) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
(ii) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
(iii) It is believed the signage and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
(iv) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
(v) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.

d) BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:!
(i) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning. As they were no signs on entrance to the car park.
(ii) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
(iii) there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

7. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
It is believed P.Eye Ltd do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

8. No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
This Claimant files serial claims regarding sites where they have lost the contract, known as revenge claims and it believed this is one such case. This is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue.

9. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

10. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

(a) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on xxxxxx.

(b) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim showing no detailed information.

The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no
reasonable prospects of success.

1. 11.1 If the court believes there was a contract (which is denied) this is just the sort of 'simple financial contract' identified at the Supreme Court as one with an easily quantifiable loss (i.e. the tariff), identified as completely different from the complex 'free parking licence' arrangement in Beavis.

11.2 Where loss can be quantified, the 'complex' and 'completely different' Beavis decision is inapplicable, as was found in ParkingEye Ltd v Cargius, A0JD1405 at Wrexham County Court.

11.3 At the Court of Appeal stage in Beavis, pay-per-hour car parks were specifically held by those Judges (in findings not contradicted in the Supreme Court later) as still being subject to the "penalty" rule, with the potential for the charge to be held to be wholly disproportionate to the tariff, and thus unrecoverable. In other words, charging £100 for a period of time for which the 'agreed and published' tariff rate is £1/hour, would be perverse, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and not a matter that the courts should uphold.

12. In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported Solicitor's Costs of £50, which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.

13. Whilst £50 may be recoverable in an instance where a claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim, ParkingEye Ltd have not expended any such sum in this case. This Claimant has a Legal Team with salaried in-house Solicitors and it files hundreds of similar 'cut & paste' robo-claims per month, not incurring any legal cost per case. I put the Claimant to strict proof to the contrary because the in-house Solicitors cannot possibly be believed to be paid in the millions per annum for their services.

14. The added 'legal' cost is in fact an artificially invented figure, which represents a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules and achieve double recovery. In Beavis, only the parking charge itself (£85) was pursued and the sum was scrutinised by the Supreme Court and held to already include a significant sum in profit; being a pre-set sum dressed up as a fee or charge agreed in contract. This was already significantly over and above the very minimal costs of operating an automated ticketing regime, and it was held that the claim could not have been pleaded as damages, and would have failed.

15.1. Similarly, in Somerfield a £75 parking charge was not held to be a penalty but a sum mentioned in the harassing letters of double that amount, almost certainly would be.

16. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. 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 confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.




Thanks in advance!

Forums like this help shine light on what can be a very dark world

Umkomaas

The Claim Form issued on the xxxxxx 2018 by Parking Eye Ltd was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person.

Rosanna Breaks?

http://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/person/292327/rosanna-breaks

3. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict !!!8216;keeper liability!!!8217; provisions.!

What's the date of the parking 'contravention', the date of issue on the NtK, and the date you received it? Does the NtK have a paragraph on the reverse side commencing 'If after 29 days .....'?

This Claimant files serial claims regarding sites where they have lost the contract, known as revenge claims and it believed this is one such case. This is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of

Really? This smells more of Civil Enforcement Ltd. It can't be ParkingEye!

Coupon-mad

Don't copy a CEL defence for a ParkingEye one. They do follow the practice direction and that defence makes little sense.

Please don't ask for a link to a ParkingEye pay & display defence - search for one.

on entrance to car park there is no clear sign indicating it is a pay and display car park. The small sign that is there is obscured by a branch and i have photos to show this the sign is tiny and pathetic it wasn't made clear it was pay and display

Why is your defence silent about these facts? It needs to set the defence facts out.

Safari_1891

OK thanks for responses. I shall read more over the weekend and try and adapt what i can.

Safari_1891

I've redrafted the defence following above advice and a better understanding what I'm doing.
This makes more sense. Any thoughts appreciated.

In the County Court <not sure what/if to add anything here, as the Claim Forms comes from Northampton County Court Business Centre>

CLAIM No: xxx

BETWEEN:

Parkingeye Ltd
<Address>
(CLAIMANT)

-AND-

xxx
(DEFENDANT)

DEFENCE

---

I am xxx, the defendant in this matter and was the registered keeper of vehicle xxx.

Preliminary matters:


01.This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 which was dependent upon an un-denied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. As far as I can ascertain, based upon the very vague particulars of claim and complete lack of evidence and photographs, and without having been furnished with the alleged signage contract, none of this applies in this material case.

02. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

a. The Claimant is put to strict proof at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs

b. In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant

c. Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver, this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

i. Sporadic and illegible signs with none shown on entrance to the site - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any alleged sum.

ii. No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant

iii. The small inadequate signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.

d. BPA CoP breaches this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

i. The signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning
ii. The sum pursued exceeds £100




03. There is no entrance signs at all to show that drivers are entering an area of 'private land'. The road was not marked as a no-stopping zone nor transparently signed as a permit-holders or 'managed' site, as the CoP requires.
On entrance to the car park there is no mention of any 'parking charge'. What price or charge can the Claimant show was agreed under the contract? When there is no sign that creates a contract nor does it alert drivers to read the terms of any other peripheral signs to learn of the rules/obligations and alleged 'contract'.

04. I 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.

05. Any charge or terms on signage on the day was not seen but even if the court believes signs were displayed, the terms were in such small print as to be illegible, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

06. The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case') yet such an assertion is not supported by any similarity in the location, circumstances nor signage. Absent any offer or agreement on a charge, the Beavis case does not assist the claimant and in fact, supports this defence. Further, there is no legitimate interest served by immediate ticketing of a car on arrival, with no attempt to mitigate loss or draw terms to the attention of drivers, or allow any period of grace to obtain any permit or even read the signs.


07. As was confirmed in the Beavis case, ParkingEye 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).

08. The Supreme Court Judges in the Beavis case held that a CoP is effectively 'regulation' for the private parking industry, full compliance with which is both expected and binding upon any parking operator.

09. 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.

10. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.

11. In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported Solicitor's Costs of £50, which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.

12.1. Whilst £50 may be recoverable in an instance where a claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim, ParkingEye Ltd have not expended any such sum in this case. This Claimant has a Legal Team with salaried in-house Solicitors and it files hundreds of similar 'cut & paste' robo-claims per month, not incurring any legal cost per case. I put the Claimant to strict proof to the contrary because the in-house Solicitors cannot possibly be believed to be paid in the millions per annum for their services. Ms Breaks cannot possibly be believed to be paid in the millions for her services.
Furthermore District Judge Sparrow struck out the solicitor cost in the claim B9FC508F, ParkingEye Ltd v Mrs S. Whilst £50 may be recoverable in an instance where a claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim, ParkingEye Ltd have not expended such a sum on this specific case.

13. The added 'legal' cost is in fact an artificially invented figure, which represents a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules and achieve double recovery. In Beavis, only the parking charge itself (£85) was pursued and the sum was scrutinised by the Supreme Court and held to already include a significant sum in profit; being a pre-set sum dressed up as a fee or charge agreed in contract. This was already significantly over and above the very minimal costs of operating an automated ticketing regime, and it was held that the claim could not have been pleaded as damages, and would have failed.

13.1. Similarly, in Somerfield a £75 parking charge was not held to be a penalty but a sum mentioned in the harassing letters of double that amount, almost certainly would be.

14. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my 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 denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. 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 confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.



Name/signature

Date

Redx

have a look at post #66 in this thread and the header and footer statements need to be the same or similar


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74678481#Comment_74678481

Coupon-mad

That's a messy defence, not very clear at all.

At the start you need to respond to the particulars of claim as set out on the left of their claim form, and either deny, or dispute or agree any common ground.

e.g. 'The Defendant agrees that it is common ground that he was the registered keeper of the vehicle mentioned in the claim, and that it was parked at the location on the material date'.

But then you might deny that any contract was offered on prominent signs and explain why, in the third person, as 'the Defendant' who was there (NOT that you were 'in a rush'!) you were unaware of it being a P&D site as no machines or terms were seen due to the sparse placing of signage and overhanging trees.

#1 is repeated by #6 so remove one or other.

#10 makes no sense as it talks about permits. Yours was a Pay & Display location.

It is not clear that the facts turn on the tiny entrance sign obscured by branches, and lack of signs that could be seen in the car park that gave you the opportunity to learn about the £100 parking charge penalty.

And change 'I' to The Defendant throughout:

As far as I can ascertain,

I was given

KeithP

What is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?

Safari_1891

What is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?

31st July. Need to wrap this up!!

That's a messy defence, not very clear at all.

At the start you need to respond to the particulars of claim as set out on the left of their claim form, and either deny, or dispute or agree any common ground.

Appreciated. I'm feeling a little bit overwhelmed and out of my depth with all this but all this helps greatly.

I shall re craft to the best of my ability as i have a few days left now...

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 31st July and the Acknowledgement of Service having been done in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 2nd September 2018 to file your Defence.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described here:

1) Print the Defence.
2) Sign it and date it.
3) Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
4) Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
5) Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
6) Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not, you should chase the CCBC until it is.
7) Wait for the Directions Questionnaire and come back here.

Safari_1891

Wait for the Directions Questionnaire and come back here.

So i received a directions questionnaire (small claims track) through post.
The confusing thing is it has been filled by the claimant (parking eye) as follows
Part A1- They agree to this claim being referred to small claims mediation service.
PartB -has their contact details
Part C -They agree small claims track is appropriate for this case
Part D - No venue for hearing stated
D2 No expert evidence, No witnesses
Part E- No fee with the form.

AM i likely to receive a blank questionnaire which I fill and return as well?