County court business centre *Defence Draft written*

Furrydog1313

Good evening all,
I have read through the newbies stickies and just want to make sure Ive understood as Im on information overload!

A PCN was issued this year at a hotel/shop car park, the alleged contravention was parking whilst on premises however the notice to keeper shows pictures of the car only and no evidence regarding a person leaving the premises.
All correspondance has been ignored to date and a claim form is now received for several hundred pounds.

An Aknowledgement of Service 'AoS' has been made, I understand there is now 28 days to compile evidence and then submit via post.


Is this correct so far? Is there anything else required that has been missed? Should a SAR be filed?


Thank you in advance

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

A Defence comes before evidence.

Furrydog1313

Issue date is 09 Nov 18

Thanks

KeithP

Furrydog1313 wrote: »

Issue date is 09 Nov 18

With a Claim Issue Date of 9th November, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 12th December 2018 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Umkomaas

Which parking company?

Which solicitors?

Furrydog1313

Euro Parking Services

Gladstones

Thanks

The_Deep

Leaving site claims are almost impossible for a PPC to win at court, proof of leaving site, mitigation of loss, and perhaps even The Human Rights Actn all stack up against them. Read this

http://parkingfine-appeals.co.uk/vehicle-control-services-ltd/.

a claim form is now received for several hundred pounds.

Even in the extremely unlikely event of them winning their claim, this as far more than the law allows, the most a judge is likely to award would be iro £175 - 200. The rest is scam money. The solicitors know this, but continue to try their luck.

IMO this is tantamount to fraud and I urge you to report them to their regulatory body, the SRA

http://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.page

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week, hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. It has even been suggested that some of these companies have links with organised crime.

Watch the video of the Second Reading and committee stage in the House of Commons recently. MPs have a very low opinion of this industry.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-19/debates/2b90805c-bff8-4707-8bdc-b0bfae5a7ad5/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill(FirstSitting)

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by in the not too distant future..and to your MP.

Furrydog1313

Thank you for the assistance so far, I will write my defence and post on here if that's ok for critique, obviously without details.

Fruitcake

Start by reading post 2 of the NEWBIES which has a step by step guide to court.

Furrydog1313

Hi to all and thanks in advance for reading my post.

Ive spent time reading similar cases and defences and have drafted the below. I have a couple of weeks before my defence needs to be submitted.


I have drafted a defence based on;
1) Signage (poor font size, lacking in number, open to misinterpretation)
2) A forbidding term cannot also constitue an offer
3) No evidence of occupants leaving site
4) No boundary identified by map/signage


The PoC stated 'The driver of the vehicle registration XXXXX (the vehicle) incurred the parking charge (s) on XXXXXX for breaching the terms of parking on the land at Lidl& Travelodge
The defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
£160 for parking charges/Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with an interest of £XX pursuant to S69 of County courts act 1984 at X% pa, continuing to judgement at £XX per day.


I have removed apostrophes as I believe theres a glitch that makes difficult reading. I understand what I have put in the defence and have read the associated references, I wonder if you would be so kind as to review and offer any builds?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

Euro Parking Services 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 at the Lidl/Travelodge car park, Postcode XXXX, for a period of approx. 30 minutes.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant XXXXX was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle XXXXXX. 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. 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. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

5. It is denied that the claimants signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. Upon a subsequent visit to the site it is apparent that the Claimants signage was deficient in quantity with terms displayed in a font which is too small, include wording open to misinterpretation and are 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 Claimants signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

6.Further it is trite law that a term that is forbidding cannot also constitute an offer. It is therefore denied that any contract was formed or was capable of being formed. The sign wording states that Lidl customers: 90 minutes maximum stay whilst you remain on the premises this is unclear, ambiguous and fails the red hand rule; as set down by Lord Denning or the test set in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking. The signs in ParkingEye v Beavis were clear and unambiguous unlike the claimants. Therefore, drivers would have little knowledge of these hidden terms.

7. The signage does not demonstrate a map/boundary line or clear definition of the premises. The IPC code of Practice, of which the claimant is a member, states on this point:
2.1 Where the basis of your parking charges is based in the law of contract it will usually be by way of the driver of a vehicle agreeing to contractual terms identified by signage in and around a controlled zone. It is therefore of fundamental importance that the signage meets the minimum standards under The Code as this underpins the validity of any such charge. Similarly, where charges are founded in the law of trespass and form liquidated damages, these too must be communicated to drivers in the same way.

8. The claimants Notice to Keeper indicates the Reason for Issue as Parking for Patrons whilst on the premises only. The claimant is put to strict proof to demonstrate with video or photographic evidence that the occupant(s) of the vehicle crossed a clearly defined boundary of the premises.

9. Should the claimant rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis, the defendant wishes to point out that there is a test of good faith.
Para 205: The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.

10. Underlining that is Section B.2.1, B.2.2 of the IPC Code of Practice which gives clear instructions as to the placing, visibility and clarity of any signs that are used to form contracts. It says:
2.1 Where the basis of your parking charges is based in the law of contract it will usually be by way of the driver of a vehicle agreeing to contractual terms identified by signage in and around a controlled zone. It is therefore of fundamental importance that the signage meets the minimum standards under The Code as this underpins the validity of any such charge. Similarly, where charges are founded in the law of trespass and form liquidated damages, these too must be communicated to drivers in the same way.
2.2 Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in a schedule 1 to the Code

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. If in the alternative it is the claimants case that his claim is founded in trespass (which is in any event denied) then in a car park setting any damages in trespass can only be assessed based on a calculation of the proportion of income lost based on the time of the alleged occupation. Any sum sought could therefore only be minimal and de-minimis.

14. That the amount demanded is therefore excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council which is set at £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days.

15. In summary, it is the Defendants 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

Once again thanks for the support of this site.

Coupon-mad

Remove the words immediately after:

To refresh on the background:

Because you simply cannot say that on an open forum. PPC scum read these threads and use them against people.