Claim Form Received

gibboian

Received today from Gladstones. This relates to an alleged incident in Sept 2017. The parking company was ES Parking (member of IAS)

Claimant says for "breaching the terms of parking on the land at xxxxx"

The driver had bought a ticket but entered an incorrect registration plate number. There was no ANPR. The vehicle was loan car from a car dealer whilst another car was being serviced. It was the "other" car's registration that was entered into the machine and printed on the ticket.

The garage provided my name as the keeper (not sure when or how).

A screen "parking charge" notice was displayed on the vehicle

The form will be completed and the claim disputed.

Any advice on a suitable defence? I have copies of the original ticket, parking charge and the signs.

Redx

plenty of defence examples in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread near the top of this forum, especially look at the BARGEPOLE ones that have been posted recently

what is the DATE OF ISSUE on the MCOL ?

also, please type up the full POC and put them into your reply as well

and are you sure it was ES Parking and not AS Parking ?


bear in mind your evidence and WS come much later in the process, for now the defence will concntrate on the legal issues

System

At what point was the parking company informed of the mistake and the correct VRM so they could tie up the paid ticket with the wrong VRM.

And just as a double check, is there anything more than "breaching the terms of parking on the land at xxxxx". For example what did it say on Notice to Keeper?

The_Deep

If they do take this to court they may struggle. Many judges would regard this as a trifling matter, and the Law does not concern itself with trifles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis

Besides they can easily check whether she parked there or not, the PPC know this, but ignore it because they want your money.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P.
for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the House of Commons recently

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41 recently.

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Coupon-mad

Please do firstly answer the questions raised above by Redx and IamEmanresu.

Any advice on a suitable defence? I have copies of the original ticket, parking charge and the signs.

Have a look in the NEWBIES thread 2nd post, read it thoroughly.

Don't go completing 'forms'...

gibboian

Thank you for helping

REDX "what is the DATE OF ISSUE on the MCOL ?"
The Claim form (MCOL?) is dated 2/10/18

"also, please type up the full POC and put them into your reply as well"
The Parking Operator was ES PARKING ENFORCEMENT LIMITED, 131 FRIARGATE, PRESTON

IanEmanresu "At what point was the parking company informed of the mistake and the correct VRM so they could tie up the paid ticket with the wrong VRM"

I haven't corresponded with the POC or Gladstones - the letters from the POC and Gladstones went direct to the garage and only recently the garage told the POC that I was the user (keeper) of the vehicle on that day. I sent the POC a copy of the Edna Basher letter after I received a letter from Gladstones.

"And just as a double check, is there anything more than "breaching the terms of parking on the land at xxxxx". For example what did it say on Notice to Keeper?"

I haven't seen a Notice to Keeper - it may have been sent to the Garage?

The exact wording of the Particulars of the claim are ..

The driver of the vehicle registration XXXXX (the "vehicle") incurred the parking charge(s) on xx/9/2017 for parking on WINWiCK ST, WA2 7TT. The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the the keeper of the Vehicle. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £160 for Parking Charges / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £12.18 pursuant to s29 of the County Court Act 1984 at 8% pa continuing to judgement at £0.04 per day

Coupon-mad I will re read the newbies there however I haven't seen an example of a driver entering the wrong VRM only examples with one letter or similar in error.

Im aware that reply has to be with 14 days of the 2/10 and I intend to defend this claim

Many thanks,

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 2nd October, you have until Monday 22nd October to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox link from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

Having done the AoS, you then have until 4pm on Monday 5th November 2018 to file your Defence.

Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


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

1) Print your 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 chase the CCBC until it is.
7) Wait for your Directions Questionnaire and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

System

I haven't seen an example of a driver entering the wrong VRM only examples with one letter or similar in error.

Sending a parking charges for a one or two digit error is against their Code of Practice. You'll find a statement by the IPC Chief Adjudicator in his most recent Annual Report

As regards not telling them, tell them in the defence as close to the top as possible. Add in the reference to this case. I would add in a copy of the ticket at this stage though it is not needed in case the Allocating judge is fed up with these cases and wants a reason to bin it.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73735850#Comment_73735850

And point out that attempting to continue a claim knowing the action would fail the test is "Beavis" could be considered an unreasonable use of the court's time and resources.

Also if you search for Winwick Street there are other cases for that site which would give you the structure and some other points but you should identify yourself as the driver and avoid any reference to POFA as it is disadvantageous to hide the driver's identity.

Coupon-mad

There are similar defences here - one recent one is about the wrong VRN put in by the keeper's wife.

gibboian

Coupon-mad wrote: »

There are similar defences here - one recent one is about the wrong VRN put in by the keeper's wife.

I filed my Acknowledgement of service tonight. Its defence time now.

In all the cases that I have read, including possible the one referred to by Coupon-mad (was this the one relating to a ferry?) the VRN issue has been a typo problem.

Can I be clear in my case the VRN on the printed ticket was for a different car (not a typo - a different car). Of course I was the keeper of BOTH cars on the day hence the mix up.

My defence will reference many of the points raised by others including signage and non provision of required information . I don't believe that the input of a matching VRN is a contractual term. So apart from including an explanation of the VRN issue in my witness statement, is the the fact that I was the keeper of both cars relevant?

The PCN attached to the windscreen said "Reason for Issue: Incorrect registration on pay and display ticket (ticket non transferable).

Once I have created a defence I will post here for feedback.

As always all help and support is appreciated

gibboian

This is my defence, I would appreciate any feedback or thoughts (this formats better in word)

Im working on my witness statement tonight.

I have photographs which I intend to add as an annex to this document and.

They are

a) image of the screen with the PCN and the displayed ticket
b) Individual image of the ticket
c) Copy of the V11 for the other car (to prove my ownership) whose number was inadvertently input to the ticket machine
d) Copy of service book proving that the other car was in the garage at the time of the ticket (so the ticket was not transferred)
d) One of the signs on the car park on the day showing non compliance with Beavis
3) Example Beavis sign

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

ES PARKING ENFORCEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

MR xxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE STATEMENT
________________________________________

1. I am the Defendant, xxxxxxxx, DOB xx/xx/xxxx and reside at xxxxxx, Warrington and it is admitted that I was the driver of the vehicle on the day of this event.

2 The Vehicle xxxxxxxxx is owned by Bentley Citroen (Warrington) and was hired to me on 21/9/2017. My own personal vehicle KV60 VLN was in their workshop for the whole day for annual service.

3 Save as specifically admitted in this defence the Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence.

Preliminary matters:

4. 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).

5 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, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract', so I have had to cover all eventualities and this has denied me a fair chance to defend this in an informed way.

6 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. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim.

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

7 The vehicle xxxxxx was displaying a valid parking ticket purchased at 07:35 on 21/09/2017 and clearly displayed on the dashboard and visible through the front windscreen. I will produce photographic evidence that shows this.(item 1)

8 The Vehicle Registration Number (VRN) printed on the ticket is the vehicle KVxx XXX owned by myself (Copy of Form V11 provided), as previously stated, this was undergoing annual service at the time of the incident. I will produce evidence that shows this. (item xx)

9 The ticket could not be transferred between these vehicles as they were 2.4 miles apart for the whole of the day. There was no loss to the claimant the ticket was bought and paid for by me.

10 The PCN was issued on a poorly signed car park. I refer to the IPC Code of Practice (CoP) Part E, highlighting that adequate and clear entrance signs are required

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 in such small print as to be illegible, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

12 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.

13 No terms were seen because of the small size and legibility of the signs 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.

14 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.
15 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.

16 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.

17 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.

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

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

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

With a signature and date below