NtK appeal letter and situation

KeithP

*** Please nobody think that I randomly made this post to chase the OP.
*** I only made this post in response to a post by the OP that he has since
*** deleted.


Last time I wrote you had four weeks to file a Defence.

You now have two weeks.

There are more than a dozen examples of Defences linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread.

Read them.

Concentrate on those concise Defences written by Bargepole and adjust one to fit your circumstances.

Post your draft for critique when you are ready.

The clock is ticking.


Yes, send a Subject Access Request to the parking company's Data Protection Officer - as suggested in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread. They have a month to respond - do it sooner rather than later.

typeractive

Thanks Keith,
I deleted my previous thread as I realised you had already replied about the SAR, which I missed. I'm going to do the SAR now.

I started a defence but lost confidence in the wording of it. I will have another go today and post it back in here.

Le_Kirk

typeractive wrote: »

I started a defence but lost confidence in the wording of it. I will have another go today and post it back in here.

If you've lost confidence in your defence, then do, as KeithP suggested, and go to the NEWBIE thread post # 2, scroll down until you see the quote below, where you will find 17 pre-written defences. Submit the SAR by all means but do not expect to get anything back in time to use in your defence, the PPC has 30 days to reply but what they send will be more useful at witness statement and evidence stage.

Here are some cases won or in progress:

Here is a defence

typeractive

Hi everyone,

Ok - here's my first bash at drafting a defence. I welcome feedback and support.

Many thanks!

---

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, entered an open acces car park which serves a number of businesses. There are no clear boundary divisions to separate the car park with association to each business by either traffic management (such as bollards) or clear signage.

3. Upon entering the car park from BUSINESS NAME side, the only visible signage is a misleading sign with a large white letter ‘P’ on a blue background, with smaller text above and below. To quote the text beneath which is not legible from the cabin of a car ‘Conditions apply, see main signs for full details site managed by UKCPS’. There are other signs on site, though it is not distinguishable if these other signs are the ‘main’ signs. They are of equal size, design, and purposefully utilise illegible typography to set conditions.

4. On one of the signs it states ‘Parked vehicles must display a valid permit clearly within the windscreen at all times. Vehicles must park fully within the confines of a marked bay’. If this applies to all vehicles, how can any visitor to the premises of these businesses gain a permit? There is no clarity on how to gain permission from the available signage, and no visible services such as a ‘pay and display’ area to suggest entering into some form of notable contract with the either the business holders of the parking management company to park for a period of time.

5. The car REGISTRATION NUMBER was parked within the confines of a parking bay within close proximity of the business being visited (BUSINESS NAME). On the DATE OF LETTER, the claimant provided 7 pictures of the vehicle parked in situ. There was an additional picture taken from the opposite side of the car park which faces the entrance to the other business premises. Again this signage is very difficult to read due to the poor use of typography. Within the 7 pictures, there is no evidence of a sign in clear sight from the vehicle.

6. In an email dated XX/YY/ZZ at HH:MM from the landowner / representative of landowner management, addressed to the local businesses to inform them of the decision to utilise a parking management company. It states ‘parking patrols will commence next Wednesday the 25th July 18, the signs are due to be erected on Monday, you will have a 10 minutes grace period’. The claimant has failed to provide myself with clear entry and exit timings to determine if a 10 minute ‘grace period’ has been fully utilised. Equally the signage provided on display makes no reference to this timing. The provided photographs date and time stamps commence at XX/YY/ZZ HH:MM, and conclude at XX/YY/ZZ HH:MM totalling a documented time of XX:XX if the camera instrumentation is calibrated and accurate.

7. 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 means of litigation.

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

9. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

Typo here:

an open acces car park

I would remove your point #3 entirely as you are describing a perfectly normal entrance sign with a P, as set out in the IPC Code of Practice. Don't even mention that sign.

I would replace your #3 with these facts from your earlier post:

3. It is denied that the vehicle was parked ‘without a valid permit or authority’ because the driver was a patron of one of the site businesses and was de facto permitted and authorised. Further, it is denied that the driver 'agreed' to pay any parking charge or penalty or was bound by any known, prominent and clear contractual terms. The car park is shared with other companies and the Defendant as ascertained that, since the time of the allegation, due to a high number of complaints and an MP getting involved, this site now has additional signs making clearer not to park in a specified area of the shared car park. These were erected after the material date.

Then change your ending by removing everything from #8 downwards and replacing it with more numbered paragraphs attacking the added fake costs, which can result in claims being struck out without a hearing:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75922229#Comment_75922229

Add that standard ending linked above, and add numbers from #8 onwards.

We don’t want them supplying photos of signs that were erected after the date of the allegation.

It would be great if they tried that, as in court it would be deemed as falsifying evidence and at the hearing you could raise it with the Judge and ask for exemplary costs in your favour (higher costs than normal paid to you, if you convince the Judge that the Claimant's conduct was mendacious & wholly unreasonable!).

typeractive

Thanks so much Coupon-Mad!

Ok, so I've:

Adjusted the typo

Removed para 3

Partially replaced para 3 as suggested, though I'm not fully confident if the other signs were there when this parking charge occurred. I Certainly don't remember them being prominent and on receipt of the NTK I purposefully visited to check. Just not confident to state they were definitely installed afterwards in case they can prove it.

Added in some info about the rip off costs.

Added in a line about 'being led to believe an MP cancelled a previous claim' I don't know the exact details on this, only the business owner telling me - so perhaps this has no weight?

This is draft 2. I'm unsure if I've done this correctly as I've copied and pasted the whole section from the ending in the link you provided. Perhaps I only need a section of it?

---

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, entered an open access car park which serves a number of businesses. There are no clear boundary divisions to separate the car park with association to each business by either traffic management (such as bollards) or clear signage.

3. It is denied that the vehicle was parked ‘without a valid permit or authority’ because the driver was a patron of one of the site businesses and was de facto permitted and authorised. Further, it is denied that the driver 'agreed' to pay any parking charge or penalty or was bound by any known, prominent and clear contractual terms. The car park is shared with other companies and the Defendant as ascertained that, since the time of the allegation, due to a high number of complaints and an MP getting involved, this site now has additional signs making clearer not to park in a specified area of the shared car park.

4. On one of the signs it states ‘Parked vehicles must display a valid permit clearly within the windscreen at all times. Vehicles must park fully within the confines of a marked bay’. If this applies to all vehicles, how can any visitor to the premises of these businesses gain a permit? There is no clarity on how to gain permission from the available signage, and no visible services such as a ‘pay and display’ area to suggest entering into some form of notable contract with the either the business holders of the parking management company to park for a period of time.

5. The car REGISTRATION NUMBER was parked within the confines of a parking bay within close proximity of the business being visited (BUSINESS NAME). On the DATE OF LETTER, the claimant provided 7 pictures of the vehicle parked in situ. There was an additional picture taken from the opposite side of the car park which faces the entrance to the other business premises. Again this signage is very difficult to read due to the poor use of typography. Within the 7 pictures, there is no evidence of a sign in clear sight from the vehicle.

6. In an email dated XX/YY/ZZ at HH:MM from the landowner / representative of landowner management, addressed to the local businesses to inform them of the decision to utilise a parking management company. It states ‘parking patrols will commence next Wednesday the 25th July 18, the signs are due to be erected on Monday, you will have a 10 minutes grace period’. The claimant has failed to provide myself with clear entry and exit timings to determine if a 10 minute ‘grace period’ has been fully utilised. Equally the signage provided on display makes no reference to this timing. The provided photographs date and time stamps commence at XX/YY/ZZ HH:MM, and conclude at XX/YY/ZZ HH:MM totalling a documented time of XX:XX if the camera instrumentation is calibrated and accurate.

7. 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 means of litigation.

8. The Claimant has continually communicated through postal contact making unreasonable requests for sums of money which are obscenely higher than payment for similar car parking facilities, despite the poor signage and clarity of entering any form of contract by means of parking on this shared land. Initial communications state £100 is owed though the claimant was requesting a reduced sum of £60 if the charge was settled within a specific period of time (14 days). This claimant is utilising tactics to unfairly persuade innocent victims to make payments as it clearly knows the parking charge is not justified. More recent correspondence from the claimant are requesting the sum of £160.

9. I am led to believe a local MP has defended another victim through the same process and the claimant clearly had no grounds for over inflated car parking charges, and dropped the parking charge.

Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
- CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

- Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

- The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

- Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

- According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

- The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

- Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''
- In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

- There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

- The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

Statement of Truth:
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
Name
Signature
Date

---

KeithP

Why does your paragraph numbering stop at 9?

Aren't you going to number those extra paragraphs you have added?

typeractive

KeithP wrote: »

Why does your paragraph numbering stop at 9?

Aren't you going to number those extra paragraphs you have added?

Hi Keith

I was going to, but then I thought the bit following 'Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous' might be it's own section?

Should I just number them all and remove that line?

KeithP

Every paragraph needs a number.

It is nothing to do with any logic or grammar, it is simply to give each paragraph an identity so, for example, if someone mentions paragraph 19, everyone instantly knows exactly what the discussion is about.

typeractive

Ok. I will number them all.
I will wait for any further feedback from the forum.
In other news I received the SAR request info by email today.