We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Critique requested, please
Options
dyzzis
Posts: 2 Newbie
As a vehicle's registered keeper, I've been served through the post with a "Claim Form" from the Northampton County Court Business Centre.
It concerns an unpaid Parking Charge Notice issued by Civil Enforcement Limited near the end of 2017.
As per the advice here on MSE, I have filed an Acknowledgement Of Service and now have just over a WEEK to submit a defence.
Could anyone guide me, please, on whether or not my proposed defence is suitable?
Here's the background:
The driver was an elderly chap attending the local medical practice on a regular and frequent basis
... for treatment for various illnesses and to be monitored following a mild stroke in July 2017.
As of 29th September 2017 when the doctor declared him fit to resume driving, the driver always parked in the medical practice's free car park, management of which was awarded to Civil Enforcement Limited in November 2017.
Civil Enforcement installed an ANPR system.
The car park became flooded with signs, making it very clear that it was a private car park, for which a 2 hour parking permit could be obtained by entering the car’s reg number into a computer terminal in the doctors’surgey.
In early 2018, I received through the post a Civil Enforcement Ltd Parking Charge Notice showing 2 photos ...
The first was of the car entering the car park; it had NO date time stamp embedded in the picture, but details were shown in text to the left of the photo.
The second photo showed the car leaving the car park; again there was NO date time stamp embedded in the photo, but a date and time were given in a block of text next to the photo.
The blocks of text indicated that the car had been in the car park for fewer than 15 minutes.
This PCN came as a surprise initially, but then a probable reason was realised:-
On using the car park for the first time under the ANPR system , the driver had entered the car's reg number as required by the car park signage ... and, in the absence of any information to the contrary, had assumed that this was a ONE-TIME operation.
On his second visit, the driver did NOT use the terminal to give the reg number. It is believed that omitting to use the terminal on this second visit is what caused the issue of the PCN.
ON his third visit, the driver encountered a new and large sign in the Medical Centre's entrance; it was a white board on an easel, carrying an instruction that reg numbers should be tapped in via the terminal on EVERY visit.
This new sign was clearly an emergency measure to augment the car park signage. It differed from the car park signage in its font, colour, style and company name. It was issued by Creative Parking Co UK, a sister company to the claimant, Civil Enforcement Limited.
A year later, the “augmental” signage is still on display in the entrance vestibule, which proves that the external signage is considered ambiguous.
ON receipt of the PCN at the start of 2018, I consulted Mr Google about it. The advice at that time seemed to be that, unlike a parking ticket handed out by the police or a council warden, a PCN was merely an invoice, which could be paid or refused.
I chose the latter option, ignoring the PCN and all follow up letters... hence the current County Court action.
=====================================================================
The Claim Form
Particulars of Claim
Claim for monies relating to a Parking Charge
for parking in a private car park managed
by the Claimant in breach of the terms +
conditions (T+Cs).Drivers are allowed to
park in accordance with T+Cs of use. ANPR
cameras and/or manual patrols are used to
monitor vehicles entering + exiting the site.
Debt and damages claimed the sum of 170.00
Violation dat:xx/12/2017
Time in:xx:xx Time out:xx:xx
PCN Ref xxxxx
Car registration number: xxxxxxx Car park:-
XXX Medical Centre
Total due- 170.xx
(Ref xxx)
The Claimant claims the sum of 181.xx for
monies realting to a parking charge per above
including xx.xx interest pursuant to
S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984
Rate 8.00% pa from dates above to xx/10/18
Same rate to Judgment or (sooner) payment
Daily rate to Judgment-0.04
Total debt and interest due- 181.xx
The claim Form does NOT contain anything handwritten in the signature box in the bottom lef-hand corner.
Instead it has the computer printed words:
Civil Enforcement Limited
(Claimant's Legal Representative)
=====================================================================
Here is my proposed Defence.
It is cribbed from posts i've seen on here
And has details of HOW I believe the alleged parking incident arose.
...
Is it right to include such details?
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: XXXXXX
BETWEEN:
Civil Enforcement 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, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to XXXX Health Centre , and was validly parked in that bay by invitation of the Medical Centre.
3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant “was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)”. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16, 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.
4. Owing to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the Claimant’s signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner. They merely state that a 2 hour permit will be issued to anyone entering the vehicle’s reg number into a terminal inside the Health Centre. The signage gave no requirement to obtain a permit on every visit. It was therefore ambiguous and a reasonable person could expect that once the reg number had been entered into a computer database, it would be “remembered” by the system, triggering the issue of a 2 hour permit for each subsequent visit.
6. Whereas the driver did enter his vehicle’s reg number into the prescribed computer terminal during his first visit to the car park after Civil Enforcement Limited had begun to manage it, he did NOT re-enter the details on his second visit; it is believed that this second visit is what triggered the issue of the plaintiff’s claim.
By the time of the driver’s next visit, a new, large and seemingly temporary emergency sign was encountered in the Medical Centre’s entrance hall. It was a white board on an easel. Itdiffered from the car park signage in its font, colour, style and company name. It was issued by Creative Parking Co UK, a sister company to the claimant, Civil Enforcement Limited.
A year later, the “temporary sign” is still on display in the entrance vestibule, proving that the car park signage is considered ambiguous and/or deficient.
7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the vehicle did not have a valid permit to be parked in that bay.
8. 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.
9. The Notice To Keeper does not specify the period of parking, as required by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Section 8 (2)(a)&(b) and therefore cannot hold the keeper liable.
10. 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 £81.22, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
11. The claim includes an additional £50 for ‘Legal representative’s costs’, such costs are not permissible under Civil Procedure Rules – Part 27.
12. 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 Civil Procedure Rules 3.4.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
Name
Signature
Date
It concerns an unpaid Parking Charge Notice issued by Civil Enforcement Limited near the end of 2017.
As per the advice here on MSE, I have filed an Acknowledgement Of Service and now have just over a WEEK to submit a defence.
Could anyone guide me, please, on whether or not my proposed defence is suitable?
Here's the background:
The driver was an elderly chap attending the local medical practice on a regular and frequent basis
... for treatment for various illnesses and to be monitored following a mild stroke in July 2017.
As of 29th September 2017 when the doctor declared him fit to resume driving, the driver always parked in the medical practice's free car park, management of which was awarded to Civil Enforcement Limited in November 2017.
Civil Enforcement installed an ANPR system.
The car park became flooded with signs, making it very clear that it was a private car park, for which a 2 hour parking permit could be obtained by entering the car’s reg number into a computer terminal in the doctors’surgey.
In early 2018, I received through the post a Civil Enforcement Ltd Parking Charge Notice showing 2 photos ...
The first was of the car entering the car park; it had NO date time stamp embedded in the picture, but details were shown in text to the left of the photo.
The second photo showed the car leaving the car park; again there was NO date time stamp embedded in the photo, but a date and time were given in a block of text next to the photo.
The blocks of text indicated that the car had been in the car park for fewer than 15 minutes.
This PCN came as a surprise initially, but then a probable reason was realised:-
On using the car park for the first time under the ANPR system , the driver had entered the car's reg number as required by the car park signage ... and, in the absence of any information to the contrary, had assumed that this was a ONE-TIME operation.
On his second visit, the driver did NOT use the terminal to give the reg number. It is believed that omitting to use the terminal on this second visit is what caused the issue of the PCN.
ON his third visit, the driver encountered a new and large sign in the Medical Centre's entrance; it was a white board on an easel, carrying an instruction that reg numbers should be tapped in via the terminal on EVERY visit.
This new sign was clearly an emergency measure to augment the car park signage. It differed from the car park signage in its font, colour, style and company name. It was issued by Creative Parking Co UK, a sister company to the claimant, Civil Enforcement Limited.
A year later, the “augmental” signage is still on display in the entrance vestibule, which proves that the external signage is considered ambiguous.
ON receipt of the PCN at the start of 2018, I consulted Mr Google about it. The advice at that time seemed to be that, unlike a parking ticket handed out by the police or a council warden, a PCN was merely an invoice, which could be paid or refused.
I chose the latter option, ignoring the PCN and all follow up letters... hence the current County Court action.
=====================================================================
The Claim Form
Particulars of Claim
Claim for monies relating to a Parking Charge
for parking in a private car park managed
by the Claimant in breach of the terms +
conditions (T+Cs).Drivers are allowed to
park in accordance with T+Cs of use. ANPR
cameras and/or manual patrols are used to
monitor vehicles entering + exiting the site.
Debt and damages claimed the sum of 170.00
Violation dat:xx/12/2017
Time in:xx:xx Time out:xx:xx
PCN Ref xxxxx
Car registration number: xxxxxxx Car park:-
XXX Medical Centre
Total due- 170.xx
(Ref xxx)
The Claimant claims the sum of 181.xx for
monies realting to a parking charge per above
including xx.xx interest pursuant to
S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984
Rate 8.00% pa from dates above to xx/10/18
Same rate to Judgment or (sooner) payment
Daily rate to Judgment-0.04
Total debt and interest due- 181.xx
The claim Form does NOT contain anything handwritten in the signature box in the bottom lef-hand corner.
Instead it has the computer printed words:
Civil Enforcement Limited
(Claimant's Legal Representative)
=====================================================================
Here is my proposed Defence.
It is cribbed from posts i've seen on here
And has details of HOW I believe the alleged parking incident arose.
...
Is it right to include such details?
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: XXXXXX
BETWEEN:
Civil Enforcement 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, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to XXXX Health Centre , and was validly parked in that bay by invitation of the Medical Centre.
3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant “was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)”. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16, 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.
4. Owing to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the Claimant’s signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner. They merely state that a 2 hour permit will be issued to anyone entering the vehicle’s reg number into a terminal inside the Health Centre. The signage gave no requirement to obtain a permit on every visit. It was therefore ambiguous and a reasonable person could expect that once the reg number had been entered into a computer database, it would be “remembered” by the system, triggering the issue of a 2 hour permit for each subsequent visit.
6. Whereas the driver did enter his vehicle’s reg number into the prescribed computer terminal during his first visit to the car park after Civil Enforcement Limited had begun to manage it, he did NOT re-enter the details on his second visit; it is believed that this second visit is what triggered the issue of the plaintiff’s claim.
By the time of the driver’s next visit, a new, large and seemingly temporary emergency sign was encountered in the Medical Centre’s entrance hall. It was a white board on an easel. Itdiffered from the car park signage in its font, colour, style and company name. It was issued by Creative Parking Co UK, a sister company to the claimant, Civil Enforcement Limited.
A year later, the “temporary sign” is still on display in the entrance vestibule, proving that the car park signage is considered ambiguous and/or deficient.
7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the vehicle did not have a valid permit to be parked in that bay.
8. 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.
9. The Notice To Keeper does not specify the period of parking, as required by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Section 8 (2)(a)&(b) and therefore cannot hold the keeper liable.
10. 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 £81.22, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
11. The claim includes an additional £50 for ‘Legal representative’s costs’, such costs are not permissible under Civil Procedure Rules – Part 27.
12. 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 Civil Procedure Rules 3.4.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
Name
Signature
Date
0
Comments
-
Looks very good.
Perhaps need to admit or deny (or state there is no evidence of) being the driver at the start, and if the keeper D was NOT the driver, say so and add in stuff about the POFA.
IMHO the only other thing missing is a more robust attack on the fact that they are trying to get £350 for £100 charge...e.g. this one is more thorough in attacking the scam of the made up added 'damages/costs' that do not exist:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74959778#Comment_74959778
Get photos of this in case it is removed. The D will need the photo at WS stage:A year later, the “augmental” signage is still on display in the entrance vestibule, which proves that the external signage is considered ambiguous.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thankyou Coupon-mad.
That's an amazingly fast response.
I'll shove off now and get the photo's.
and I will of couse follow your suggestion to make a more rigorous attack the inflated/unwarranted fees and costs ... as per the example you quote0 -
I edited in one more thought above as well.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
What is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards