HX Car Park Managment - Gladstones - Parking Fine - County Court Claim Form Received

Theopop

DEFENCE SENT - EMAIL RECEIPT RECEIVED


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No:

BETWEEN:

XXXXXXX (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (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 XXXXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay at XXXXXXX, after the Defendant had paid for a ticket.

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.

4. The Particulars of Claim also state that the driver of the vehicle incurred the parking charges for breaching the terms of parking on the land. 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.

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.
The terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed on the corner of the entrance in which a vehicle turns from a busy road into the car park. It is located in a place which would be hard to read from a turning vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to stop the vehicle and read the font would be unable to do so easily. A large information board located next to the pay machines does not state the terms of what will incur a fine, only listing the small tariffs and making no mention of any penalty in large lettering. The PDT machine itself also does not mention £100 on the tariff list, which is a misleading omission of relevant facts, contrary to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations, which protects consumers from unfair or misleading trading practices and bans misleading omissions and aggressive sales tactics. Therefore, it is denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of binding a driver to any £100 charge.

6. The original demand letter showed photographs of the Defendant's car entering and exiting the car park, with Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) timings suggesting that the vehicle had stayed for one hour and sixteen minutes. The length of time that was actually paid for is not stated anywhere on any of the letters or documentation, therefore the Defendant is having to guess that the allegation is of a sixteen minute overstay. In this case, the Claimant has not allowed a reasonable observation period and grace period (either side of paid-for time) in flagrant disregard for The British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code of Practice.
The BPA Code of Practice states the following regarding grace periods:
“13.2 and 30.2 If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.”
“13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

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.
There is no public data available to confirm that the Claimant has applied for planning permission from the Council to erect signage and ANPR cameras on the site.

8. 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, which appears to be an attempt at double recovery, as no calculation or explanation is given other than stating damages and indemnity costs. A further court fee of £25 and Legal Representative's Costs of £50, takes the total amount claimed to £238.76. The added 'legal' costs are in fact an artificially invented figure, which represents a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules. The Claimant's handle millions of what are effectively cut and paste robo-claims. The Defendant reasonably concludes that no supervising solicitor is likely to have provided legal advice for a fee or in any way supervised this claim.

a) In ParkingEye v Beavis, only the parking charge itself (£85) was pursued and the sum was scrutinised by the Supreme Court and held to already include a significant sum in profit; being a sum set in advance which was already significantly over and above the very minimal costs of operating an automated ticketing regime. Damages could not be added; it was held that a claim from a parking firm agent could not have been pleaded as damages, and would have failed because the claimant suffered no loss.

9. 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.


I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.


Name

Signature

Date

Theopop

Received Directions Questionnaire email

We act for the Claimant and have notified the Court of our Client’s intention to proceed with the claim.

Please find attached a copy of our Client’s completed Directions Questionnaire, which will be filed with the court upon their request. You will note we intend to request a special direction that the case be dealt with on the papers and without the need for an oral hearing

This request is sought simply because the matter is in our Client’s opinion relatively straightforward and the costs incurred by both parties for attending an oral hearing would be disproportionate.

You will note our Client has elected not to mediate. Its decision is not meant to be in any way obstructive and is based purely on experience, as mediation has rarely proven beneficial in these types of cases. Notwithstanding this, our Client would be happy to listen to any genuine payment proposals that you wish to put forward.


Yours sincerely

Redx

and the BARGEPOLE post tells you all about that, lol

Theopop

4. After sending off your Defence, the Northampton Business centre will send a copy to the Claimant, and then send a Directions Questionnaire (form N180) to both Claimant and Defendant. You must complete this by the date given, and send it back to Northampton, with a copy to the other side (or their solicitors if they've nominated one as the address for service).

Ahhh sorry, I was all confused. Just realised they've sent me a Copy of THEIR DQ. I thought it was the one I had to fill in. I guess I wait to receive my own copy from court.

Coupon-mad

You are doing really well, despite a lack of replies (understandable as we get further into December that people are busy and off-forum more).

Be aware that HX are in the IPC, not the BPA, so they will knock this back in their WS:

In this case, the Claimant has not allowed a reasonable observation period and grace period (either side of paid-for time) in flagrant disregard for The British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code of Practice.
The BPA Code of Practice states the following regarding grace periods:
“13.2 and 30.2 If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.”
“13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

Have a look through the IPC CoP about grace periods and signs while you wait for your own DQ to come from the CCBC.

KeithP

Theopop wrote: »

Ahhh sorry, I was all confused. Just realised they've sent me a Copy of THEIR DQ. I thought it was the one I had to fill in. I guess I wait to receive my own copy from court.

Yes, I updated the list in post #4 above a couple of days ago to include:

• Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
  
• Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of [URL="https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread[/URL] to find out exactly what to do with it.

Coupon-mad

Theopop wrote: »

Ahhh sorry, I was all confused. Just realised they've sent me a Copy of THEIR DQ. I thought it was the one I had to fill in. I guess I wait to receive my own copy from court.

This was months ago, so what happened?

You didn't come back to ask about your witness statement & evidence ready for a hearing.

luizarios4

Hello,

Sorry for bumping up your thread but wondering if you could let me know what happened with your case? Did you fight? Did you win? Did you find how to contact King Street Car Park in Wigan?

I'm having a similar case to yours and would love to know what happened to yours.

Le_Kirk

The last time the OP looked at the site was 16/01/19 and is unlikely to see your post. If you want to contact the OP, you could try a PM and they might receive an e-mail.