Pure Gym - Total Parking Solutions - BW Legal - Overstay

PROXYROXY

Hi all,

I've been following guidence on how to tackle roboclaims on here as of my first letter received from Total Parking Solutions (TPS) in the start of the year.

The car park for my gym allows for a 2 hour parking period and up to 3 hours if you sign in on the ipad within the gym. Admittedly I got a little carried away working out and ended up overstaying by 2 hours. I wasn't aware of the limited parking time of only 3 hours, but always logged my car in at the gym as I was under the impression that I was signing in my car during my stay.

After ignoring the first 3 PCN letters from TPS they handed over the PCN claim to BW legal, After ignoring the floods of phone calls and various final warnings, I waited for the letter before claim to submit a SAR request and inform BW Legal to put the case on hold during this timeframe. I'm now at the stage of receiving a county court claim form and could do with some major help on ensuring I have a solid defence to return with. I have acknowledged the claim and have pieced the below together so far. Please provide any guidence you can. I appreciate your help in advance:

***


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

Total Parking Solutions Limited (Claimant)

-and-

PROXYROXY (Defendant)




DEFENCE

Background - the Defendant was an authorised patron of Pure Gym

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at Central Retail Park car park on 04/05/2018. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant a 'parking charge' for the lawful conduct described below.

2. The allegation appears to be that the 'vehicle was not authorised to use the car park over an allocated time' based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit and is no evidence of the driver revisiting the gym or not being a patron of Pure Gym.

3. The Defendant has already proved that he was a patron of Pure Gym, and it is the Claimant's own failure, caused by their deliberately obscure terms and iPad that catches out far too many victims at this location, that has given rise to a 'PCN' that was not properly issued from the outset.

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

5. 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.

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. They are placed at the entrance of a busy road next to a junction and pedestrian crossing with no indication of its affiliation with Total Parking Solutions. All of these factors make the signage unclear on entrance into the car park.

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 tiny 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 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.

8. Under the GDPR, the Claimant is also put to strict proof regarding the reason for such excessive and intrusive data collection via ANPR surveillance cameras at a remote car park where there would likely be no cars unconnected to patrons, no trespass nor 'unauthorised' parking events.

9. The Defendant has sent a subject access request (SAR) to the Claimant, for response during November 2018, and will expand upon the denial of breach in the witness statement and evidence, once the Defendant has seen the details from the SAR and/or in the event that the Court orders the Claimant to file & serve better particulars.

10. 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 £70. The claim includes an additional £58.18, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

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.

***

Coupon-mad

Looks like you've researched the defence examples well. That's a decent defence.

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

PROXYROXY

Thanks Coupon Mad, that means a lot coming from you. Keith, the issue date was Nov 29.

KeithP

PROXYROXY wrote: »

The issue date was Nov 29.

With a Claim Issue Date of 29th November, you have until Tuesday 18th 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 Wednesday 2nd January 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over a month away away. 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.

Coupon-mad

KeithP, do you think you could add a point #8, something like:

8) Often a PPC will send you their copy DQ very quickly, especially if they use a solicitor who doesn't wait for the court to send it out to them. Please don't post asking 'is this normal?'. Wait for MCOL to update saying the court has sent the DQ out, or download your own by Googling it.

PROXYROXY

Hi all,

I Still don't see my claim as defended. Do you have a number for the CCBC?

Umkomaas

PROXYROXY wrote: »

Hi all,

I Still don't see my claim as defended. Do you have a number for the CCBC?

Not to hand. But Google might.

KeithP

PROXYROXY wrote: »

Hi all,

I Still don't see my claim as defended. Do you have a number for the CCBC?

You haven't mentioned it, but when and how did you file your Defence?

Their telephone number is on your Claim Form. :rotfl:

PROXYROXY

I emailed it to the address provided as well as sending it to mcol@hmcts.Gsi.Gov.Uk

I'm going to ring 0300 123 1057 now and see if they can help.

PROXYROXY

The defence has now been submitted and confirmed on the MCOL website. I'll return with any updates moving forward. Thank you all so much for your help!