Feedback please! Private Parking Solutions DEFENCE (I have read Newbies Thread)

crystalchampagne

Thanks to all who have come before me, providing drafts, advice and guidance, it's been really helpful so far.

I am a newbie. I got served with this claim by Gladstone Solicitors on 10th December 2018, right on the brink of Christmas (presumably in an attempt to bamboozle me at a busy time of year).

I have filed my AOS and below is my first draft at a defence. Everything I've written below is of course true. I had a valid permit for that date (I can submit the evidence), I just hadn't displayed it, because I had been parking the car like that for 3 days with no trouble. I had authority from the employer/reception staff. I literally thought that displaying the permit in my windscreen was just a meaningless formality.

Thank you for your help!

---

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM NO: XXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

PRIVATE PARKING SOLUTIONS LONDON LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (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 XXXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in parking site allocated to Company XXXXXX by Building Management Company XXXXXXXX at XXXXXXX business park, and had a valid permit to be parked in that parking zone.

3. 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.

4. The Particulars of Claim state that ‘[t]he Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle.’ These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is rather 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 para 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.!

5. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

6. The Defendant has no liability as they are the keeper of the vehicle, and Private Parking Solutions has failed to comply with the strict provisions of POFA 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges.

6(i) The driver has not been evidenced on any occasion.

6(ii) There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is a keeper obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. This was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Greenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of 'keeper liability' as set out in Schedule 4.

7. The Claimant’s signs on the site are small and sparsely distributed. The words on the 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.

8. 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.

9. The car park has a security gate which can be opened only by authorised people. In this case,!it is my belief as registered keeper that!the car was parked inside the premise with permission from the security and reception staff at!the!time of the!alleged!incidents.

10. The driver was allowed the right to park by the leasehold business, relying on an express verbal agreement with the on duty reception staff.! This permission created the prevailing and overriding contract - the only contract - and the business was concluded as agreed, at no cost or penalty.

11. This charge represents a breach of the well-known and well-established principle of promissory estoppel, i.e. that a promise is enforceable by law, even if made without formal consideration, when party A has made a promise to party B, who then relies on that promise to his subsequent detriment.

12. This charge represents a breach of the well-known and well-established principle that 'a grantor shall not derogate from his grant'. This rule embodies a general legal principle that, if A agrees to confer a benefit on B, then A should not do anything that substantially deprives B of the enjoyment of that benefit.

13. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land to unilaterally remove or interfere with the overriding rights enjoyed by the lessee company and extended to permitted drivers who were expressly allowed on site, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

14. The Claimant is trying to recover additional charges such as legal costs £50.00 and court fees £25.00. The Protection!of!Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Defendant also has reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and is put to strict proof they actually have occurred. As a small Claim, the legal costs cannot be recovered and be struck out.

15.!Further and alternatively, the provision requiring payment of!£255.64!is unenforceable as an unfair term contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.!

16. 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.

Statement of Truth:

I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Name
Signature
Date

KeithP

Is this any different to the draft Defence you posted on your already existing thread?

Starting a second thread about the same incident is not a good way to get the response you want.

Can I suggest you copy your latest draft on to your existing thread and replace the text in your post above with something like:

Duplicate Thread - please ignore.

crystalchampagne

Thanks for your reply KeithP. The reason I began a new thread is because I had no responses or feedback to my original draft defence yet. Since I am travelling soon, I wanted to ensure that my thread had the best chances of getting feedback. I figured that perhaps my first thread was too long, so people didn't want to read it.

As you know, I am new to this site, therefore I am making lots of assumptions about these things based on my general understanding of the internet. Thanks for your feedback about how to post threads on MSE, I will try to delete my original thread now.

KeithP

No, please don't try to delete your original thread, it has information on it that you might find useful - like how and when to file your Defence.

In my opinion, that is the thread that you should continue to use.