Penalty Charge Notice issued at Sennen Cove Beach car park for not displaying a valid ticket

69jase

Most recent correspondence.

Coupon-mad

Don't restate their particulars in your defence.

One aspect that I have omitted to include, but which some other defence examples have, is regarding flimsiness of the ticket, as the ticket is the kind with adhesive on the back; therefore I feel that this should not be included as part of my defence?

So re-write that bit, to say that the adhesive was not fit for purpose in sunlight or cold condensation conditions (or whatever the weather was like)!

69jase

Many thanks Coupon-mad. I have now removed the Particulars of Claim and included an additional point: "5.2 The ticket was placed on the dashboard and not stuck to the windscreen due to the low quality contact adhesive not being fit for purpose for ensuring the ticket remains fixed due to exposure to sunlight, condensation, etc.".

Can I double check to reassure myself, as I have claimed in my defence and as others have, that Armtrac Security/their legal team have:
failed to meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5, i.e. "Where a claim is based upon an agreement by conduct, the particulars of claim must specify the conduct relied on and state by whom, when and where the acts constituting the conduct were done."?
and,

their claim particulars fail to specify how the terms of parking were breached and fail to fulfil CPR Part 16.4 by not including a statement of the facts on which the claimant relies, only referring to parking charges incurred with no further description …, etc.?

Thanks again.


In the County Court
STATEMENT OF DEFENCE
Claim no. xxxxxxxx
Claimant: KBT Cornwall Limited
Defendant: xxxxxxx

DEFENCE
Preliminary matters
1. The Particulars of Claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5.
1.1 The claim particulars fail to specify how the terms of parking were breached and fail to fulfil CPR Part 16.4 by not including a statement of the facts on which the claimant relies, only referring to parking charges incurred with no further description; it fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence; are not clear and concise as is required by CPR Part 16.4 1(a).
1.2 The Claimant and their legal team are known to be a serial litigants and issuer of speculative claims, using template particulars of claim which arise from an automated template, with no due diligence.
1.3 In C3GF84Y2 (Mason, Plymouth County Court) [2016] the judge struck out the claim brought by KBT Cornwall Ltd as Gladstones Solicitors had not submitted proper Particulars of Claim, and similar reasons were cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.
1.4 On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failed to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the claim was struck out.

2. The valid parking ticket was taken from the dashboard of the car and shown to the Parking Patrol Officer after they had affixed the PCN to the windscreen. The Defendant subsequently appealed the PCN on XX/XX/XXXX explaining what had happened and included a photographic copy of the front and back of the ticket displayed on the day. The serial number on the front and back of the ticket in the defendant’s photo, in fact, matching the serial number on the claimant’s photo of the reverse side of the ticket: XXXXXXXX. On both accounts, this provided the Claimant with clear evidence that the defendant acted in good faith and made all reasonable endeavours to comply with the terms and condition (“T&C”) - as far as they were understood.
2.1 This was an opportunity (on two separate occasions) for the Claimant to act reasonably and cancel the charge.
2.2 The above constitutes a direct breach of Practice Direction pre-action conduct and protocols; specifically - paragraph 3 (Objectives), and 8 (Settlement and ADR). As such the court's attention is drawn to paragraphs 13 - 16.
2.3 The above is also a direct breach of the International Parking Community ("IPC") Code of Practice ("CoP"), Part B, Section 6. The CoP is effectively regulation for the private parking industry, as found by the supreme court judges in the Beavis Case.

3. On the basis of the above, the Defendant requests the court strike out the claim for want of a cause of action and disregard of pre-court protocol.
3.1 Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;
a) 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
b) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
c) If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
Note: a SAR request was submitted to the claimant, although the Claimant did reply, this particular request was not acknowledged: ‘evidence of a payment to a debt collector/legal team (BW Legal) re: £60 addition to the PCN’.
d) If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
3.2 Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.

Background
4. I am X, the Defendant, and both the authorised registered keeper and driver in question at the time of the alleged incident.

5. The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons:

5.1 A valid ticket was paid for and displayed so all details could be seen, and was in place the right way up prior to the car being locked and left parked. The Defendant has no knowledge of the point at which the ticket flipped over or why, but made reasonable endeavours, and complied by conduct.

5.2 The ticket was placed on the dashboard and not stuck to the windscreen due to the low quality contact adhesive not being fit for purpose for ensuring the ticket remains fixed due to exposure to sunlight, condensation, etc.

5.3 The Defendant cannot be responsible for the possibility that the ticket has flipped or blown over after the driver left the vehicle as a result of:
a) A gust of wind may have later moved the ticket from sight, despite the windows being shut and the doors being locked, i.e. through the air vents.
b) The employee of the Claimant may have caused the ticket to move, perhaps accidentally when leaning across the car or pushing between vehicles. No suggestion of foul play is intended.
c) A passer-by may have leaned on the car to get to their own vehicle, the beach, restaurant, or toilets.
5.4. None of the above scenarios are within a driver's control (The driver was by that time, absent from the location) and it is evident that someone else – or a factor outside anyone's control – was to blame. This appears to have been a case of casus fortuitus "chance occurrence, unavoidable accident", which is a doctrine that essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties renders the contract frustrated.
5.5 The Defendant showed the Parking Patrol Officer the valid ticket from the Defendant’s car dashboard within 2 hours of the PCN being issued, but they refused to cancel the PCN.
5.6 The term, ‘A valid ticket must be purchased to park on this site and be displayed clearly in your front windscreen’ in particular the meaning of ‘displayed clearly’ is not transparent per Section 68 of the CRA 2015. Where contract terms have different meanings Section 69 of the CRA 2015 provides a statutory form of the contra proferentem rule, such that the consumer must be given the benefit of the doubt.
5.7 A valid ticket was displayed in the front windscreen of the Defendant’s vehicle. If the Claimant wanted to impose a different term to say continuously display the ticket face-up then they should have drafted clear terms to that effect. Fluttering ticket cases have been ruled by PATAS adjudicators in Council PCN adjudications as requiring specific terms to 'continuously display' or there is no contravention. The term is fundamental to the contract, and the Defendant invites the Court to find that it is not transparent and therefore unfair. If a fundamental term to the contract is deemed to be unfair, then the contract will cease to bind the parties.
5.8 It is not disputed that the ticket gave the Defendant a licence to park for the entire day. The ticket was displayed on the dashboard at all times. This will be demonstrated by the Claimant’s own evidence.
5.9 The Claimant’s evidence will show the back of the ticket has a serial number of XXXXXXXX. The Defendant’s evidence will also show the front and back of the ticket has the same serial number of XXXXXXXX. Furthermore, the Defendant’s evidence will also show that the front of the ticket also displays the last 3 letters of their registration number.
5.10 The Defendant’s evidence will also show that a valid ticket was purchased via Credit Card; providing further proof of purchase of a valid ticket.
5.11 The Defendant asserts that it is reasonable for a consumer to believe that the terms which specify the main subject matter of the contract are those emphasised as terms and conditions on the signage in red, bulleted text, given the distinct formatting and semantics. The term that ‘Retrospective evidence of authority to park will not be accepted’ does not specify the main subject matter of the contract. It cannot therefore be excluded from an assessment of fairness per Section 64(1) of the CRA 2015.
5.12 The terms on the Claimant's signage were also displayed in a font and colour combination which was too small and difficult to be easily read. It was also in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract to pay a penalty charge, which as never communicated adequately, nor accepted by conduct. Whilst the tariffs per hour were in the largest font, any penalty was hidden in small print and nothing alerting drivers to a possible additional £100 was displayed by way of 'contract' at the PDT machine, which was the point of sale.

6. The Claimant has failed to establish their legal right to bring a claim either as the landholder or the agent of the landholder and therefore would have no locus standi to bring this case per Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] 1B &S 393, as confirmed by the House of Lords in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd.
6.1 Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 showed that the Claimant does not have a wider legitimate interest extending beyond the prospect of damages, as their interest is only limited to the recovery of compensation for the alleged breach of contract, and no commercial interest has engaged as to the control of parking as the Defendant had paid for a licence to park.

Claimant is seeking a penalty and inflated costs
7. The Claimant seeks £160 which is an extravagant and unconscionable penalty, and therefore unenforceable particularly because the Defendant has shown they did purchase a valid ticket and the Claimant has suffered no loss, and because any breach of contract (which, for the avoidance of doubt, is denied) was de minimis.
7.1 The Claimant is under a duty to mitigate its loss. It failed to do so by ignoring the information available from the Defendant having provided details of a valid ticket having been purchased that would have enabled it to establish that the Defendant was parked legitimately.
7.2 £60 of the £160 ‘parking charge’ (for which liability is denied) the Claimant has untruthfully presented as contractual charges, which amounts to double charging, which the PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 specifically disallows. The defendant lodged a SAR request to the claimant requesting: ‘evidence of a payment to a debt collector (BW Legal) re: £60 addition to the PCN’. However, no such evidence was provided.
7.3 There is no possible commercial justification for the Claimant to found an action based on such a trivial error. The Beavis v ParkingEye [2015] Judges at the Court of Appeal stated there was a commercial justification as it was free car park and needed to prevent overstays of the free 2 hour stay. Whereas in this case the car park is a Pay and Display car park where revenue is gained as people need to pay to park there for an agreed period of time.
7.4 The Claimant has claimed a £50 legal representative’s cost on the claim form, despite being well aware that CPR 27.14 does not permit such charges to be recovered in the Small Claims Court. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the charges have not been invoiced and/or paid and that due to the sparse particulars the £50 claimed for filing the claim has not been incurred either. This appears to be an attempt at double recovery as a way to inflate the value of the claim. In the alternative, the Claimant is put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred.
7.5 The £50 solicitor cost was disputed in the test case of ParkingEye v Beavis and Wardley. HHJ Moloney refused to award the £50. His award was; “JUDGMENT FOR CLAIMANT FOR £85 PLUS ISSUE COSTS”. These were presumably the £25 filing fee and £25 hearing fee. The £50 was also struck out by DJ Sparrow on 19 August 2015 in ParkingEye v Mrs S, claim number B9FC508F.
7.6 I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest charges.

8. The Defendant invites the court to consider this matter a trifle; the Defendant has acted in complete good faith; made reasonable endeavours to adhere to the terms of a contract and the Claimant has suffered no actual loss. Therefore, the Claimant has spent X months aggressively seeking extravagant sums for a presumed failure to display a valid parking ticket; evidence for the validity of which has never been questioned.
8.1. The Defendant requests the court use its case management powers to strike the claim out as the Claimant has failed to provide basic details about its claim; is seeking an extravagant and unconscionable penalty and is automating its use of the court process against the public interest to intimidate and harass those acting in good faith.

Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this defence to be true.

Printed Name

Signed Dated

Coupon-mad

I never like this old template, so remove it:

3. On the basis of the above, the Defendant requests the court strike out the claim for want of a cause of action and disregard of pre-court protocol.
3.1 Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;
a) 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
b) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
c) If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
Note: a SAR request was submitted to the claimant, although the Claimant did reply, this particular request was not acknowledged: ‘evidence of a payment to a debt collector/legal team (BW Legal) re: £60 addition to the PCN’.
d) If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
3.2 Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.

That bit adds nothing and is just waffle IMHO.

Never call a scammer an 'officer' as that's a level of respect they don't deserve:

Parking Patrol Officer

And I think your #2 (entirely) needs to be moved down to flow better as point #6, but under 5.10.

Then make 5.11 and 5.12 new numbers #7 and #8 because they are not quite saying the same thing as the rest of number 5 so need to be stand-alone numbered paragraphs.

And DO NOT continue to plead that you are liable for a ''trivial error''.

OK so you might have said in your appeal that the ticket may have flipped over when you shut the car door but you do not know that! Armtrac do this SO OFTEN that it makes one wonder if their ticketers lean on cars or blow through the vents to send tickets flying off or over, on the dash.

It really is so very common that you should not be calling it an error. Your version of events is that you DID COMPLY with terms, did pay & display and you do not know who or what caused it to flip over (could be the weather, could be the flimsiness of the ticket, could be the ticketer himself deliberately doing this as the industry are indisputably scammers).

Here's one of loads you can find just by searching the forum for SENNEN (you should do that to see how common this scam is at that site):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75791041#Comment_75791041

I'd say that draft is better, less waffly and quotes proper council ticket adjudicators and how they view flimsy fluttering ticket cases. I'd work on a new draft, like that.

Do you know what, I would LOVE it if one day someone can catch the ticketers in the act at Sennen Cove. I must stress it is only an educated guess that they MIGHT dislodge tickets somehow...based on knowledge from the clamping days, and Armtrac were notorious scum clampers pre-2012 when it was criminalised.

But if someone could sit in a vantage point and quietly film what they do it will prove it one way or the other. Anyone going there fancy a picnic just near the car park?!

69jase

Many thanks again CM for your very useful and prompt feedback. Below is a revised version, which I hope now takes into account your feedback and is more succinct.

In the County Court
STATEMENT OF DEFENCE
Claim no. xxxxxxxx
Claimant: KBT Cornwall Limited
Defendant: xxxxxxx

1. I am X, the Defendant, and both the authorised registered keeper and driver in question at the time of the alleged incident. However, the Defendant denies that he is liable to the Claimant either as alleged in the Particulars of Claim or at all. Each and every allegation in the Particulars of Claim is denied.

2 A valid ticket was paid for and displayed so all details could be seen, and was in place the right way up prior to the car being locked and left parked. The ticket was placed on the dashboard and not stuck to the windscreen due to the low quality contact adhesive not being fit for purpose for ensuring the ticket remains fixed due to exposure to sunlight, condensation, etc. The ticket gave the Defendant permission to park for the remainder of the day, from 10:00am until 23:59pm on xx/xx/18, covering the time and date relating to the disputed charge. The Defendant has no knowledge of the point at which the ticket flipped over or why, but made reasonable endeavours, and complied by conduct.

3 The Defendant cannot be responsible for the possibility that the ticket has flipped or blown over after they had left the vehicle as a result of a) a gust of wind may have later moved the ticket from sight, despite the windows being shut and the doors being locked, e.g. through the air vents; b) the employee of the Claimant may have caused the ticket to move, perhaps accidentally when leaning across the car or pushing between vehicles. No suggestion of foul play is intended; c) a passer-by may have leaned on the car to get to their own vehicle, the beach, restaurant, or toilets. None of the above scenarios are within a driver's control (The driver was by that time, absent from the location) and it is evident that a factor outside anyone's control or someone else was to blame. This appears to have been a case of casus fortuitus "chance occurrence, unavoidable accident", which is a doctrine that essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties renders the contract frustrated.

4 The Particulars of Claim fail to fulfil CPR Part 16.4 because it does not include a statement of the facts on which the claimant relies, only referring to a ‘Parking Charge Notice’ with no further description; it fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. The Particulars of Claim provide no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was, whether the claim is brought for breach of contract or trespass, nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Claimant’s solicitor has not stated on the claim form that particulars of claim will follow. In C3GF84Y (Mason, Plymouth County Court), the judge struck out the claim brought by KBT Cornwall Ltd as Gladstones Solicitors had not submitted proper Particulars of Claim, and similar reasons were cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

5 Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 provides that the Court has a duty to consider the fairness of the terms. Even if a contract had been formed it would be void, or in the alternative the following terms are either not transparent or are unfair, and these terms are not binding on the consumer, for these reasons.

6 The term, ‘A valid ticket must be purchased to park on this site and be displayed clearly in your front windscreen’, in particular the meaning of ‘displayed clearly’, is not transparent per Section 68 of the CRA 2015. Where contract terms have different meanings Section 69 of the CRA 2015 provides a statutory form of the contra proferentem rule, such that the consumer must be given the benefit of the doubt.

7 A valid ticket was displayed in the front windscreen of the Defendant’s vehicle. If the Claimant wanted to impose a different term to say continuously display the ticket face-up then they should have drafted clear terms to that effect. Fluttering ticket cases have been ruled by PATAS adjudicators in Council PCN adjudications as requiring specific terms to 'continuously display' or there is no contravention. The term is fundamental to the contract, and the Defendant invites the Court to find that it is not transparent and therefore unfair. If a fundamental term to the contract is deemed to be unfair, then the contract will cease to bind the parties.

8. It is not disputed that the ticket gave the Defendant a licence to park for the entire day. The ticket was displayed on the dashboard at all times. This will be demonstrated by the Claimant’s own evidence. The Claimant’s evidence will show the back of the ticket has a serial number of XXXXXXXX. The Defendant’s evidence will also show the front and back of the ticket has the same serial number of XXXXXXXX. Furthermore, the Defendant’s evidence will also show that the front of the ticket also displays the last 3 letters of their registration number and that a valid ticket was purchased via Credit Card.

9. The valid parking ticket was taken from the dashboard of the car and shown to the PCN issuer after they had affixed the PCN to the windscreen, but they refused to cancel the PCN. The Defendant subsequently appealed the PCN on XX/XX/XXXX explaining what had happened and included a photographic copy of the front and back of the ticket displayed on the day. The serial number on the front and back of the ticket in the Defendant’s photograph, in fact, matching the serial number on the claimant’s photo of the reverse side of the ticket: XXXXXXXX and the front of the ticket in the Defendant’s photograph also displays the last 3 letters of their registration number. On both accounts, this provided the Claimant with clear evidence that the defendant acted in good faith and made all reasonable endeavours to comply with the terms and condition (“T&C”) - as far as they were understood. Both provided an opportunity for the Claimant to act reasonably and cancel the charge.

10. The above constitutes a direct breach of Practice Direction pre-action conduct and protocols; specifically - paragraph 3 (Objectives), and 8 (Settlement and ADR). As such the court's attention is drawn to paragraphs 13–16 and also a direct breach of the International Parking Community ("IPC") Code of Practice ("CoP"), Part B, Section 6. The CoP is effectively regulation for the private parking industry, as found by the supreme court judges in the Beavis Case.

11. The Defendant asserts that it is reasonable for a consumer to believe that the terms which specify the main subject matter of the contract are those emphasised as terms and conditions on the signage in red, bulleted text, given the distinct formatting and semantics. The term that ‘Retrospective evidence of authority to park will not be accepted’ does not specify the main subject matter of the contract. It cannot therefore be excluded from an assessment of fairness per Section 64(1) of the CRA 2015.

12. The terms on the Claimant's signage were also displayed in a font and colour combination which was too small and difficult to be easily read. It was also in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract to pay a penalty charge, which as never communicated adequately, nor accepted by conduct. Whilst the tariffs per hour were in the largest font, any penalty was hidden in small print and nothing alerting drivers to a possible additional £100 was displayed by way of 'contract' at the PDT machine, which was the point of sale.

13. The Claimant has failed to establish their legal right to bring a claim either as the landholder or the agent of the landholder and therefore would have no locus standi to bring this case per Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] 1B &S 393, as confirmed by the House of Lords in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd. Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 showed that the Claimant does not have a wider legitimate interest extending beyond the prospect of damages, as their interest is only limited to the recovery of compensation for the alleged breach of contract, and no commercial interest has engaged as to the control of parking as the Defendant had paid for a licence to park.

14. The Claimant is under a duty to mitigate its loss. It failed to do so by ignoring the information available from the Defendant having provided details of a valid ticket having been purchased that would have enabled it to establish that the Defendant was parked legitimately.

15. £60 of the £160 ‘parking charge’ (for which liability is denied) the Claimant has untruthfully presented as contractual charges and £4.80 as statutory interest both for breach of contract. This amounts to double charging, which the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) specifically disallows. Added costs/damages were also deemed unrecoverable in the Supreme Court case of Beavis, which allowed only the parking charge itself (£85) due to compelling facts about clear signs, a legitimate commercial interest and deterrent value in encouraging turnover of spaces. None of this applies to this claim, which is wholly meritless due to the Claimant's failure to similarly disengage the penalty rule.

16. The Claimant has claimed a £50 legal representative’s cost on the claim form, despite CPR 27.14 not permitting such charges to be recovered in the Small Claims Court. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the charges have not been invoiced and/or paid and that due to the sparse particulars the £50 claimed for filing the claim has not been incurred either. This appears to be an attempt at double recovery. The defendant lodged a SAR request to the claimant requesting: ‘evidence of a payment to a debt collector (BW Legal) re: £50 addition to the PCN’. However, no such evidence was provided. The £50 solicitor cost was disputed in the test case of ParkingEye v Beavis and Wardley. HHJ Moloney refused to award the £50. His award was; “JUDGMENT FOR CLAIMANT FOR £85 PLUS ISSUE COSTS”. These were presumably the £25 filing fee and £25 hearing fee. The £50 was also struck out by DJ Sparrow on 19 August 2015 in ParkingEye v Mrs S, claim number B9FC508F.

17. It is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Therefore, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. as the Claimant has failed to provide basic details about its claim; is seeking an extravagant and unconscionable penalty and is automating its use of the court process against the public interest to intimidate and harass those acting in good faith.

Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this defence to be true.

Printed Name

Signed Dated

Coupon-mad

That's better.

The only things missing are:

- the usual template defence paragraph seen in all defences here, about the fact the Claimant doesn't own the land and are put to strict proof of their landowner contract and standing to sue.

- The Beavis case is mentioned twice in your defence but the first time you need the full citation (with the names in italics, is how a solicitor or law student would show it):

Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67

69jase

Many thanks for the prompt response. it is very much appreciated as I am hoping to email my defence this evening as it is due by the 5th June.

I have amended point 10 as follows to address the second point:
10. The above constitutes a direct breach of Practice Direction pre-action conduct and protocols; specifically - paragraph 3 (Objectives), and 8 (Settlement and ADR). As such the court's attention is drawn to paragraphs 13–16 and also a direct breach of the International Parking Community ("IPC") Code of Practice ("CoP"), Part B, Section 6. The CoP is effectively regulation for the private parking industry, as found by the supreme court judges in Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

In relation to the first point, would the following point (currently included) address it:
13. The Claimant has failed to establish their legal right to bring a claim either as the landholder or the agent of the landholder and therefore would have no locus standi to bring this case per Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] 1B &S 393, as confirmed by the House of Lords in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd. Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 showed that the Claimant does not have a wider legitimate interest extending beyond the prospect of damages, as their interest is only limited to the recovery of compensation for the alleged breach of contract, and no commercial interest has engaged as to the control of parking as the Defendant had paid for a licence to park.

Coupon-mad

I think that second point conflates two distinct defence points, which are better stated separately:

- no landowner authority

- no legitimate interest

Le_Kirk

Small point, it is not a defence statement, just DEFENCE.

69jase

Many thanks ...

C-M I'll split the point into two.

L-K I'll remove statement.

I'll have a further final read through and get it emailed later tonight as already advised in the this thread and then await the Directions Questionnaire..