Business court

weatherman89

Here is a draft for your perusal...
Please kindly advise.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXX

BETWEEN:

PARKINGEYE LTD (Claimant)

-and-

REGISTERED KEEPER (Defendant)

1. I am the defendant,

---

2.I deny any liability to the Claimant whatsoever on the following basis:

A) Insufficient signage: In the claimant’s Parking charge notice it is stated that a parking charge is applicable if the motorist fails to enter their full, correct vehicle registration into the terminal in the reception. But the claimant failed to provide appropriate signage as to where the terminal in the reception is located. The driver was completely unaware of where the terminal in the reception is located because of the insufficient signage. The defendant refers to the BPA Code of Practice, Part B, highlighting that entrance signs are necessary.

.The defendant had prior to receiving the parking charge notice, not received any warning as to any change in signage in regards to parking charge. There was no charge applicable for up to three months leading to the first parking charge notice on the 14/07/18 from the claimant, as the defendant as well as most colleagues of his have generally used this parking area. The claimant had only recently placed their signage within the car park creating new terms and conditions for motorists. The BPA Code of Practice v6 which applied in December 2017, states at 18.11: ''Where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you should make these clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you should consider a grace period to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes.''


C). The Claimant uses ANPR camera systems to process data but fails to comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information' (the ICO Code). This is both a specific Data Protection and BPA Code of Practice breach.

C.1.The ICO Code applies to all ANPR systems, and states that the private sector is required to follow it, in order to meet its legal obligations as a data processor. Members of the BPA are required to comply fully with the Data Protection Act (DPA) and all ICO rules and guidelines, as a pre-requisite of being able to use the DVLA KADOE system and in order to enforce parking charges on private land.

C.2. The Claimant's failures to comply include, but are not limited to the following, and the Claimant is put to strict proof otherwise on all counts:

1) Lack of an initial privacy impact assessment, and

2) Lack of an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, considering concepts that would impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle, and

3) Failure to regularly evaluate whether it was necessary and proportionate to continue using ANPR, together with an iPad as a secondary data processing system at this site, as opposed to a less privacy-intrusive method of parking enforcement (such as 'light touch' enforcement only at busy times, or manning the car park with a warden in order to consider the needs of genuine patrons), and


4) Failure to prominently inform a driver in large lettering on clear signage, of the purpose of the ANPR system and how the data captured would be used, and

5) Lack of the 'Privacy Notice' required to deliver mandatory information about an individual's right of subject access, under the DPA. At no point has the Defendant been advised how to apply for, and what a data subject's rights are, to obtain all images and data held via a Subject Access Request from the Claimant.

D). Furthermore, The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. And in the defendant’s case, it is not expected to look at high up unremarkable signs at a place the defendant is used to parking. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

E) The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant; was the registered keeper of the vehicle(s) however the claimant could not ascertain if he was the driver; this assertion indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action. 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.

F). Due 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.

G). It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. 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. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.

H). Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.

I). As was confirmed in the Beavis case, ParkingEye could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).

J). It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

K). 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.

L).The Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date


I

Coupon-mad

But the claimant failed to provide appropriate signage as to where the terminal in the reception is located. The driver was completely unaware of where the terminal in the reception is located because of the insufficient signage.

Surely it's not about 'where' the terminal was located?

It's about the fact you didn't know about any terminal at all (like in the examples defence I linked).

I also do not see the usual 'no landowner authority' point seen in every defence example. How come people keep omitting that, recently?

weatherman89

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Surely it's not about 'where' the terminal was located?

It's about the fact you didn't know about any terminal at all (like in the examples defence I linked).

I also do not see the usual 'no landowner authority' point seen in every defence example. How come people keep omitting that, recently?

I have amended the first para as per the 'terminal location and signage'
And about the 'no landowner authority'...isn't para G of my defence related to this?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXX

BETWEEN:

PARKINGEYE LTD (Claimant)

-and-

REGISTERED KEEPER (Defendant)

1. I am the defendant,

---

2.I deny any liability to the Claimant whatsoever on the following basis:

A) Insufficient signage: In the claimant’s Parking charge notice it is stated that a parking charge is applicable if the motorist fails to enter their full, correct vehicle registration into the terminal in the reception.The defendant was completely unaware of the terminal in the reception because of the insufficient signage. The defendant refers to the BPA Code of Practice, Part B, highlighting that entrance signs are necessary.

.The defendant had prior to receiving the parking charge notice, not received any warning as to any change in signage in regards to parking charge. There was no charge applicable for up to three months leading to the first parking charge notice on the 14/07/18 from the claimant, as the defendant as well as most colleagues of his have generally used this parking area. The claimant had only recently placed their signage within the car park creating new terms and conditions for motorists. The BPA Code of Practice v6 which applied in December 2017, states at 18.11: ''Where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you should make these clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you should consider a grace period to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes.''


C). The Claimant uses ANPR camera systems to process data but fails to comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information' (the ICO Code). This is both a specific Data Protection and BPA Code of Practice breach.

C.1.The ICO Code applies to all ANPR systems, and states that the private sector is required to follow it, in order to meet its legal obligations as a data processor. Members of the BPA are required to comply fully with the Data Protection Act (DPA) and all ICO rules and guidelines, as a pre-requisite of being able to use the DVLA KADOE system and in order to enforce parking charges on private land.

C.2. The Claimant's failures to comply include, but are not limited to the following, and the Claimant is put to strict proof otherwise on all counts:

1) Lack of an initial privacy impact assessment, and

2) Lack of an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, considering concepts that would impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle, and

3) Failure to regularly evaluate whether it was necessary and proportionate to continue using ANPR, together with an iPad as a secondary data processing system at this site, as opposed to a less privacy-intrusive method of parking enforcement (such as 'light touch' enforcement only at busy times, or manning the car park with a warden in order to consider the needs of genuine patrons), and


4) Failure to prominently inform a driver in large lettering on clear signage, of the purpose of the ANPR system and how the data captured would be used, and

5) Lack of the 'Privacy Notice' required to deliver mandatory information about an individual's right of subject access, under the DPA. At no point has the Defendant been advised how to apply for, and what a data subject's rights are, to obtain all images and data held via a Subject Access Request from the Claimant.

D). Furthermore, The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. And in the defendant’s case, it is not expected to look at high up unremarkable signs at a place the defendant is used to parking. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

E) The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant; was the registered keeper of the vehicle(s) however the claimant could not ascertain if he was the driver; this assertion indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action. 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.

F). Due 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.

G). It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. 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. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.

H). Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.

I). As was confirmed in the Beavis case, ParkingEye could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).

J). It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

K). 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.

L).The Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date


I

Coupon-mad

Yes...I see that now, but your numbering is really confusing (don't use letters).

weatherman89

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes...I see that now, but your numbering is really confusing (don't use letters).

Is the numbering a little less ambiguous?

Plus Do I need to state my name as in ....' I am the defendant...

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXX

BETWEEN:

PARKINGEYE LTD (Claimant)

-and-

REGISTERED KEEPER (Defendant)

A. I am the defendant,

---

B.I deny any liability to the Claimant whatsoever on the following basis:

1) Insufficient signage: In the claimant’s Parking charge notice it is stated that a parking charge is applicable if the motorist fails to enter their full, correct vehicle registration into the terminal in the reception. The defendant was completely unaware of the terminal in the reception because of the insufficient signage. The defendant refers to the BPA Code of Practice, Part B, highlighting that entrance signs are necessary.

2).The defendant had, prior to receiving the parking charge notice, not received any warning as to any change in signage in regards to parking charge. There was no charge applicable for up to three months leading to the first parking charge notice on the 14/07/18 from the claimant, as the defendant as well as most colleagues of his have generally used this parking area. The claimant had only recently placed their signage within the car park creating new terms and conditions for motorists. The BPA Code of Practice v6 which applied in December 2017, states at 18.11: ''Where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you should make these clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you should consider a grace period to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes.''


3). The Claimant uses ANPR camera systems to process data but fails to comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information' (the ICO Code). This is both a specific Data Protection and BPA Code of Practice breach.

3.1. The ICO Code applies to all ANPR systems, and states that the private sector is required to follow it, in order to meet its legal obligations as a data processor. Members of the BPA are required to comply fully with the Data Protection Act (DPA) and all ICO rules and guidelines, as a pre-requisite of being able to use the DVLA KADOE system and in order to enforce parking charges on private land.

3.2. The Claimant's failures to comply include, but are not limited to the following, and the Claimant is put to strict proof otherwise on all counts:

a) Lack of an initial privacy impact assessment, and

b) Lack of an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, considering concepts that would impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle, and

c) Failure to regularly evaluate whether it was necessary and proportionate to continue using ANPR as a secondary data processing system at this site, as opposed to a less privacy-intrusive method of parking enforcement (such as 'light touch' enforcement only at busy times, or manning the car park with a warden in order to consider the needs of genuine patrons), and


d) Failure to prominently inform a driver in large lettering on clear signage, of the purpose of the ANPR system and how the data captured would be used, and

e) Lack of the 'Privacy Notice' required to deliver mandatory information about an individual's right of subject access, under the DPA. At no point has the Defendant been advised how to apply for, and what a data subject's rights are, to obtain all images and data held via a Subject Access Request from the Claimant.

4). Furthermore, The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. And in the defendant’s case, it is not expected that the defendant will look at high up unremarkable signs at a place the defendant is used to parking. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

5) The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant; was the registered keeper of the vehicle(s) however the claimant could not ascertain if he was the driver; this assertion indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action. 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.

6). Due 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.

7). It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. 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. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.

8). Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.

9). As was confirmed in the Beavis case, ParkingEye could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).

10). It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

11). 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.

12).The Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date


I

Coupon-mad

Numbering looks better now.

But you do not need 'A' at all!

nosferatu1001

Yep, no need for any letters> Just numbered para.

weatherman89

coupon-mad wrote: »

numbering looks better now.

But you do not need 'a' at all!

thank you, i have removed 'a'...
I will forwarding it tonight to ccbc

weatherman89

I received a copy of the claimant DQ (small claims track) today. It a pre-filled copy from the claimant. I am going to receive a copy from to court to respond to?
Please kindly advise.

weatherman89

I received a copy of the claimant DQ (small claims track) today. It a pre-filled copy from the claimant. I am going to receive a copy from to court to respond to?
Please kindly advise.