County Court Defence

car1954

HI, Parking Eye again... I am at County Court Defence stage - Please could you take a look at the PCN and my draft defence. The main issue here is the inadequacy of the signage but in particular, the misleading sign. I hope my defence makes it clear but if I give no further explanation here, that will be the test as to whether I have explained it clearly enough in my defence!
Thank you.


IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE

CLAIM No:


BETWEEN:

PARKING EYE LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-
(Defendant)



DEFENCE



1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed or at all.

2.The Particulars of Claim do not specify the legal basis upon which the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

3 Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is adequate, conspicuous or legible. The Claimant’s signage is misleading and indicates that parking to the left of the Claimant’s entrance sign is for the Odeon Cinema and to the right of the entrance sign, for the restaurant, Chiquito. In order to discharge its obligations the Claimant must provide adequate information in the particular circumstances of each location. In this location the cinema and the restaurant are adjacent to one another and share a central access road. The Cinema is located to the left of the road with parking bays in front of it, and Chiquito is located to the right of the road with parking bays in front of it. The Defendant was attending the Cinema and parked in an unmarked bay to the left of the road and in front of the Cinema. It was reasonable for the defendant to believe that these bays were for the use of Cinema goers , a belief that was corroborated by the misleading information on the Claimant’s entrance sign.

4 It is denied that the Claimant’s signage is displayed throughout the site. No signage was visible from the parking bay where the Defendant parked. The bays directly in front of the cinema were not marked to indicate an associated with Cinquito and therefore there was nothing to counter the natural assumption that these bays were for the use of Cinema goers.

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.

6. 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 small font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

7 The Claimant’s signage is unlit and therefore illegible in poor natural light in any event.

8 In support of the Defendant’s submission that the Claimant’s signage was inadequate, illegible and misleading at the time of the issue of this Parking Charge Notice , the Claimant has since this time installed additional and larger signage at the location. The Claimant is put to proof as to the reasoning and necessity for this additional signage and to disclose the number of Parking Charge Notices served to motorist parking in the bays directly in front of the Cinema since April 2018 when the parking restrictions were first initiated.


9. No authority from the landowner to the Claimant have been sent to the Defendant confirming the legality of the claim and charges. In the absence of strict proof of the landowner’s authority 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.





27 November 2018


Particulars read as follows:
Claim for monies outstanding from the defendant in relation to a parking charge issued on 20/04/2018 for parking on private land in breach of the terms and conditions (the contract). Parking Eye's automated number plate recognition system, monitoring Chiquito Preston, Port Way , Ashton on Ribble, Preston,Lancashire PR@ 2YQ, captured vehicle XXX entering and leaving the carp park, without paying to park. The signage, which is clearly displayed at the entrance and throughout the site, states this is private land, is managed by ParkingEye , and is a paid parking site, along wit other T+C's by which those who park on site agree to be bound. In accordance with the T+C's set out in the signage, the Parking Charge became payable. The defendant previously had their appeal rejected by POPLA, the independent appeals service for parking on private land. This claim is in reference to Parking Charge(s) 293xxxxx

Amount claimed £100
Court Fee £25
Legal rep costs £50
Total amount £175

onlyfoolsandparking

I'm no expert on defences (many on here are though) but I would remove the claim number if its the real one, parking scammers read these forums and can use any info against you in Court.

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

car1954

15 November

KeithP

car1954 wrote: »

15 November

With a Claim Issue Date of 15th November, you have until Tuesday 4th December to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox link from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

Having done the AoS, you then have until 4pm on Tuesday 18th December 2018 to file your Defence.

That's nearly three weeks away. Loads of time to hone your Defence to perfection, 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 described here:

1) Print your Defence.
2) Sign it and date it.
3) Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
4) Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
5) 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'.
6) Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
7) Wait for your Directions Questionnaire and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

car1954

Thank you. Yes I have already filed my acknowledgement of service. I actually posted it old style with a stamp!
Thank you for your reply.

car1954

HI again. Just wanted to update you on this. I served the defence on 5 December. The Claimants then had until 7 Jan ( 33 days including postal service according to Court) . I did not receive any notification from the court, however on 8 Jan I received in the post a photocopy of the form N180 - Directions Questionnaire, partially completed by Parking Eye and assume posted to me by them??
I phoned the Court and they too were a little confused as they had put a block on the case as Parking Eye had failed to respond within the allotted time. They sent me form N244 to apply to have the case struck out. However, they require a £100 Court Fee. So I have declined to take this route.My reasoning is that Parking Eye has now failed to respond within the time limits, the Court had put a block on the case, so if Parking Eye wish to proceed, they will have to ask the court for an order to lift the block/stay.
I don't know if I am being unfairly cynical but it seems to me that either Parking Eye inadvertently missed the deadline and are trying to push me into some sort of action by posting the Directions Questionnaire to me - or they deliberately missed the deadline to avoid having the matter heard in court for fear of the ruling going against them as they are aware their procedure and signage is ineffective??

I would be interested to hear other's views.

Thanks

Coupon-mad

My reasoning is that Parking Eye has now failed to respond within the time limits, the Court had put a block on the case, so if Parking Eye wish to proceed, they will have to ask the court for an order to lift the block/stay.

Yes, agreed. The case is stayed if the court has confirmed it is. If they lift the stay, the court will send YOU a N180 for yourself. So you will know if you need to go ahead.

BUT

As PE were only a day late (or not late at all) in confirming they wished to proceed and serving the N180, are you CERTAIN the case is stayed?

It seems unlikely to me, very fishy, and I would phone again and speak to another CCBC Clerk. I highly doubt the CCBC stayed cases just after the New Year for being a day late with confirming they were proceeding.

I say 'not late at all' as 5th December was when you filed the defence to the CCBC, not when PE received it, and so the time can't start from 5th December.

I suspect a Court clerk was guessing.

car1954

This is the filed version of my defence:

DEFENCE



1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed or at all.

2 The Claimant’s Particular of Claim breach the mandatory requirement of Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 in that they fail to provide a concise statement of facts upon which they rely ,inter alia, the time and date of the alleged breach is not included and the Defendant is therefore put at a disadvantage.

3 The Claimant’s Particular of Claim are unclear as to the basis of their claim and fail to comply with Civil Practice Direction 16 paras 7.3 and/or 7.4 and /or 7.5 in that no copy document has been served nor details of contractual words spoken nor details specified of the conduct relied upon in terms of whom, when and where and the Defendant is therefore put at a disadvantage.

4.The Particulars of Claim do not specify the legal basis upon which the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. 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.

6 Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is fair, clear, prominent, or legible. The Claimant’s signage is unfair and misleading in that it indicates that parking to the left of the Claimant’s Entrance Sign is for the Odeon Cinema and therefore unrestricted and to the right of the Entrance Sign is for the restaurant, Chiquito.

7.It is the defendant’s submission, based on the concepts within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 of fairness and transparency, supporting the persuasive rulings of the Parking Appeal Service ( Bladon v City of Westminster) Parking Appeal 197028990 , that in order to discharge its obligation and for a contractual relation to exist, the Claimant must provide adequate information in the particular circumstances of each location. If the location is unusual because an exceptional feature then it is necessary to provide extra signs.
It is the Defendant’s submission that this location is unusual and therefore does require extra, prominent and conspicuous signage. In this location the cinema and the restaurant are adjacent to one another and share a central access road.

The Cinema is located to the left of the road with parking bays in front of it, and Chiquito is located to the right of the road with parking bays in front of it.

The parking bays outside the Cinema are within 15 yards of the entrance to the Cinema but more than 100 yards from Chiquito. It is therefore reasonable for a motorist to conclude that the parking bays outside the Cinema are for cinema goer’s use and are unrestricted. Previously there had been no restriction on parking in these bays and the defendant had parked there without restriction for many years.

8 It is denied that the Claimant’s signage was displayed throughout the site. No signage was visible from the parking bay where the Defendant parked. The bays directly in front of the cinema were not marked to indicate an associated with Cinquito and therefore there was nothing to counter the natural assumption that these bays were for the use of Cinema goers. Furthermore to overcome this natural assumption and to avoid any misunderstanding, the Claimant needed only to mark the tarmac in the centre of each of the blocks of bays outside the Cinema with the word ‘Chiquito’ which the defendant submits is neither costly nor onerous.

9 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.

10. Further, the terms on the Claimant's signage is in a font which is too small to be read without the use of magnification. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

11 The Claimant’s signage is unlit and therefore indiscernible in poor natural light in any event.

12 In support of the Defendant’s submission that the Claimant’s signage was inadequate, illegible and misleading at the time of the issue of this Parking Charge Notice , the Claimant has since this time installed additional and larger signage at the location.


13 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 and 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.

KeithP

I wrote this post a couple of days ago:

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=75280624#post75280624

Some of it might help you too.

car1954

Well, I rang the court and gave the case ref and said nothing initially. The Clerk said that this matter has been stayed/blocked. I asked him to explain and he said that as they had failed to respond it was blocked. He seemed to be checking on the computer. I then asked about the timing. The letter court send to me is dated 5 December notifying me of the 28 day deadline. He said that the date that had been calculated was 7th Jan as they worked on 33 days from date of the defence.
I then told him about the N180 form that had come from Parking Eye. He said that the Court had not send out any forms to anyone and that I should ignore the form from Parking Eye.

He said that as the case had been stayed/blocked , I could now apply to have it struck out.

He then emailed me the N244 Application notice.

It does seem very strange that Parking Eye have sent a semi completed form to me and not to the Court especially when it should be the Court sending the form to both me and Parking Eye. It's classic !!!! up or Conspiracy but not sure which??