NtK appeal letter and situation

Coupon-mad

How much more clearly could I have said this?

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.

typeractive

Apologies CM. I added a couple of additional paragraphs, then copied and pasted everything from the link you sent but obviously did not number them.

I've amended this now and welcome any further support.

Thank you.

---

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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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...''

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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

Coupon-mad

Yep, nearly done. Remove this as these varying sums are 'normal':

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.

And remove any first person 'I' and 'me' like here:

9. I am led to believe

typeractive

Thanks Coupon-Mad and Keith P

I will make those changes to the letter, and add in the details such as the company names, dates and time. Then I will do as Keith P previously outlined earlier in my thread.

Still feeling apprehensive and I'm sure I will still need some hand holding but fingers crossed!

typeractive

Hi all,

• Logged in to money claim online - defence received.
• Received the N180 form, and read the thread from bargepole on what responses to put in boxes A1/B/C1/D1 and so on.

A few small queries. I know I need to provide a copy to the parking firm (I can't see any mention of them using a solicitor), do I send the 2 copies to Northampton or send one direct to the parking firm? (I'm guessing the first, but double checking).

Can I pick any local court or only ones that handle money claims?

When completing the first section 'to be completed by, or on behalf of' there are options for 1st 2nd 3rd corresponding to claimant /defendant etc. Is this just a delete as appropriate?

Will the parking company receive the defence which could influence if it goes to court or not i.e. they could pull out on the evidence, or will it be automatically heading that way now?

Thanks!
:beer:

Coupon-mad

You are surely not telling us that UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD are filing their own claims now. Of course they use Gladstones solicitors and your claim form tells you that.

do I send the 2 copies to Northampton

Why on earth would you attach it twice to your email submitting it to the CCBC?! Clearly it goes to Gladstones too, because they are the Claimant's solicitor.

Can I pick any local court or only ones that handle money claims?

Only ones that deal with cases on the small claims track.

When completing the first section 'to be completed by, or on behalf of' there are options for 1st 2nd 3rd corresponding to claimant /defendant etc. Is this just a delete as appropriate?

Yes.

Will the parking company receive the defence which could influence if it goes to court or not i.e. they could pull out on the evidence, or will it be automatically heading that way now?

Some cases end up discontinued but most go to a hearing. So expect a hearing.

But you know that you have a way to go yet, with WS & evidence stage first.

Coupon-mad

Or, is it actually UKCPS (who do file their own claims) as your earlier posts tell us?

Yet you filed a defence stating the wrong claimant...

typeractive

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Why on earth would you attach it twice to your email submitting it to the CCBC?! Clearly it goes to Gladstones too, because they are the Claimant's solicitor.

Because I was going to send it in the post, hence two copies, but if there is an email I should send it to instead I will. So if I send by post do I send two copies to Northampton, or one separately to each company?

Or, is it actually UKCPS (who do file their own claims) as your earlier posts tell us?

Yet you filed a defence stating the wrong claimant...

It is UKCPS, but I amended all the details of the claimant and the defendant after the bulk content of the defence was written. The template had UK Car parking Management on. I didn't want to continuously post back on here for every typo as I know it is overwhelming for those who are helping. So the defence is filed with the correct claimant on.

Coupon-mad

Oh good, that's fine. I was concerned the claimant was wrongly stated.

You need to email the DQ to the CCB like KeithP told you in his earlier reply, and email a copy to UKCPS if you can find an email for them (pretty sure Brown Trout has posted a UKCPS email addy before).

typeractive

Update:

• Requested the SAR.
• Received a Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track with a hearing date in November.
• Received a statement of fact and copy of all the information from UKCPS with copies of all their letters, pics and stuff they have sent since the first Notice to Keeper. (I do spot an error on one of their signs in the pack, compared to what is on the erected signage. The erected one states "Conditions apply see main signs for full details" whereas the one in their pack says "Terms and conditions apply for parking on this land see additional signs for full terms and conditions".

In their statement of fact they make a note that 'After reviewing the defence we can confirm this is a standard forum template letter and does not contribute to a resolution of charge'. They obviously receive a lot of these / are avidly reading here :idea:

So now I need to do similar and create a statement of fact with paragraphs, and send all documents on which I intend to rely upon no later than 14 days before the hearing to both the court and the claimant. It says "These should include the letter making the claim and any reply". Is that basically every letter I've received from UKCPS, and anything I have sent them?

I also need to pay a hearing fee of £25. Naturally I'm feeling a bit apprehensive as never been involved with anything like this. I have read what to expect at court, just might need some help and guidance on the statement of facts. I will read some more on newbies to get an idea of how to construct one.