Parking Fine - Wise Campus - Bristol

Gridiron_Grump

Let me know if anyone has read the above and thinks this is ok, as I’ll email it to myself, print it, sign it and email it tomorrow from work (can’t get on the forum at work, doesn’t work, blocked I expect). Alternatively, if I don’t hear anything I will just go with it anyway. Cheers.

Coupon-mad

I was going to add a link to the Wise website that states when the change took place, but figure that potentially should be referred to in the evidence section (if at all).

Add nothing at this stage. That will be evidence to go later with your WS.

Remove #9 as it's already in the template you got from the abuse of Process thread, so it's repeated lower down anyway (then renumber).

You go from 10.6 to 10.9. Easier to just put subsequent full numbers.

Gridiron_Grump

Thanks coupon. Assuming you mean using 9, 10, 11, 12 etc instead of 9, 10, 10.1, 10.2 etc.

Gridiron_Grump

With amendments suggested (as I interpreted) from Coupon:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle registration number xxxxxx on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. It is denied that any 'parking charges’ are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety because no keeper liability, no cause for action against the defendant. The claimant has failed to show locus standi, the defendant does not believe they have a right to bring an action against anyone.

3. Accordingly, it is denied that the driver breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct as no enforceable contract offered at the time by claimant, no cause for action can have arisen.

4. The Claimant also stated in the Particulars of Claim that ‘the driver became liable for a parking charge’. However, the claimant has failed to provide evidence of that agreement and failed to identify who the driver that it is referring to.

5. Change of Conditions from the landowner, whereby prior to 13th November 2017 there was no fee required to park on the land. This change in restrictions wasn’t clearly, or fairly advertised; especially to any driver(s) that prior to this date were familiar with the car park and cannot reasonably be expected to seek out signage or PDT machine, especially when sparse, unclear or hard to find.

6. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event hence incapable of binding the driver as the claimant failed to comply with International Parking Company Code of Practice ‘PART E Schedule 1 – Signage’.

7. Photos obtained following a subject access request to the claimant show zero evidence of signage pertaining to the restrictions and regulations of parking on the Landowners property.

8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

9. Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
- CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

10. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

11. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

12. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

13. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

14. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

15. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:

''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

16. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

17. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

18. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

Statement of Truth:
I confirm that the contents of this defence are true to the best of my knowledge.

Name
Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

Nice example of a perfect generic defence that also gives the facts. Good!

Gridiron_Grump

Hello all, I’ve been away for a while and busy at work. The DQ came from the official source just before I went on holiday, and I fear that I have wrongly assumed that i can complete and file this form online? I have a sinking feeling I have to post it and at it has to be received by Monday (12th). I’m also currently visiting my folks and am stuck with a terrible 4g and internet connection, so am struggling to navigate the web to see if i can actually do this online. I can only assume that this being received by post after the date will not be well received. Do the courts offer extensions?

If it can be completed online I shouldn’t have this issue as I’ll get it done tomorrow night / Monday morning when I’m back home.

Cheers

KeithP

Return your completed DQ to the CCBC in the same manner and to the same email address that you sent your Defence. refresh you memory on that by re-reading post #27 above.

Remember to send a copy to the Claimant address on your Claim Form.

The courts offer no extensions.

Gridiron_Grump

I had my court venue change letter about a week or so ago, but essentially am I now just playing the waiting game until I hear from them? I assume I should look into witness statement, costs, evidence etc.?

Umkomaas

Gridiron_Grump wrote: »

I had my court venue change letter about a week or so ago, but essentially am I now just playing the waiting game until I hear from them? I assume I should look into witness statement, costs, evidence etc.?

Did that give you a deadline by when to submit your Witness Statement?

When is your hearing scheduled?

Gridiron_Grump

Paraphrasing;

Notice of transfer of proceedings- 18th August

To all parties

Claim transferred to below court. On receipt will be referred to procedural judge to manage.
Judges directions to be sent in notice of allocation.
If further info required contact the local court but please await the judges directions.

......

That’s the lot.