County Court Claim Form Received

clarke-17

Hi all, as advised, I'm posting on this to 'bump' it!

clarke-17

:rotfl: :money: :j

Coupon-mad

I am very unsure about point 8 but feel it relevant that something should be in there about their total lack of organisation!

Looks OK to me. This is the sort of thing you will be expanding on, in your WS later.

Also, the 'car park' in question is a gravel area with white lines spray painted on the wall. According to the image on their signage, a car must be parked fully within a marked bay (with a picture of how this should look) which is impossible to translate to real-life driving. Do you think this point is clear enough or is there a better way to express it?

Looks clear to me, again, at WS & evidence stage you can elucidate with photos.

I would say you need to respond to the POC, either admitting or denying all of it:

Particulars of claim:
XXX parked his vehicle XXX on private land at XXX and was issued with five parking charge notices (PCN) for Unauthorised Parking.

Photographic evidence of contravention was taken which is dated and time stamped.

XXX has received numerous correspondence from NPM and had paid for one of the PCNs but has ignored the other four

The PCNs were passed to our debt recovery team (ZZPS) and additional charges were applied.

We would like to claim a total of four PCNs at £160 totalling £640. We would also like to claim for court cost (Total claimed £700).

So I would start like this and move the other numbering you had, down:

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. It is denied that any 'unauthorised parking' took place. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the vehicle not being authorised (whatever that may mean) and how they consider any signage was capable of forming a contract. Given that the Claimant appears to be suggesting that unauthorised parking is prohibited on the one hand, the Defendant avers that the same conduct cannot also be offered/allowed at a price. This would appear to be disingenuous attempt to dress up conduct that could at best be painted as trespass (a matter for landowners in possession only, and denied) as if it were a matter of breach of contract.

3. It is denied that the Defendant 'paid for one of the PCNs but has ignored the other four' and the Particulars are factually inaccurate and embarrassing.

4. Even if the PCNs were passed to the Claimant's debt recovery agents, ZZPS, it is denied that additional charges were applied or paid by the Claimant, because ZZPS operate on a no-win-no-fee basis . The Claimant is put to strict proof and appears to have added £60 to each PCN as an attempt at double recovery. It is averred that the Claimant has artificially exaggerated the considered amount to over £600 so that, in the event of the Defendant failing to defend, they could employ High Court Enforcement. The entire claim is without merit and the sum claimed is a gross abuse of process.

5. In all facts, this case can be fully distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which was a 'complex' and unique case where an £85 parking charge regime at a retail park, unusually disengaged the usual penalty rule which was held to still have application in standard contracts and would require consideration in all parking charge cases. In the extant case it is submitted that the charges are unconscionable given the facts, that there is/was no 'relevant contract/obligation', and that the PCNs are punitive and incapable of being saved by any overriding legitimate interest.

6. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim consists of a relatively small area of gravel with no [STRIKE]delegated[/STRIKE] designated bays...etc...

clarke-17

Amazing! Thanks so much :j