One Parking Solution - Visitors Space PCN

Le_Kirk

If the PPC have not responded within 30 days and you can be sure that the request was made to the DPO and included a copy of the V5C and PCN to prove who the applicant was, then a complaint to the ICO is in order.

KeithP

AOneVS wrote: »

County court letter received today.

What is the Issue Date on the Claim Form?

Did it come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?

Coupon-mad

Which local court, not in Sussex is it?

AOneVS

Hi Coupon-mad, issue date is 6th September and it is from Northampton CCBC. Our local court would have been Chichester, but I think that's closed now.

Coupon-mad

I also heard from a neighbour on the estate that their parents got a ticket when visiting them. They are in court next week.

Where is the person appearing next week and if it's Worthing or thereabouts, do they want help?

KeithP

AOneVS wrote: »

Hi Coupon-mad, issue date is 6th September and it is from Northampton CCBC.

With a Claim Issue Date of 6th September, you have until Wednesday 25th September to do the Acknowledgement of Service. If possible, do not do the AoS before 11th September, but otherwise there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 9th October 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence could 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 "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep 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.

AOneVS

Thanks KeithP. What is the significance of Wednesday 11th?
Coupon-mad:

Where is the person appearing next week and if it's Worthing or thereabouts, do they want help?

I haven't seen the neighbour to find out. I'd be interested in their defence and hope they get a good result!

KeithP

AOneVS wrote: »

Thanks KeithP. What is the significance of Wednesday 11th?

It's five days after the Issue Date.
Five days are allowed for the service of documents and current thinking is that if the claim is acknowledged inside those five days then perhaps the twenty-eight days allowed for filing of the Defence may start as soon as the AoS is done.

In other words, if you were to do the AoS before Wednesday, it will be clear to everyone that you had in fact been served with the claim at that time.

Be safe... do the AoS sometime after 11th September and definitely before 25th September.

AOneVS

Acknowledgement completed.

This is a first draft of the defence statement. It's a combination of the excellent one provided by Johnersh and my old one (Side note: In that case, the Judge dismissed their argument about the lease containing terms for visitors parking:

He (the Claimant) brought her attention to the lease, which mentions visitor parking restrictions, again she was having none of it and said there was no definition of temporary (parking) or any penalty for breaching the condition.

___________________________________________________________________________

DEFENCE STATEMENT
___________________________________________________________________________


Preliminary
1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.
Background
3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings.

4. It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]

5. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
5.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
5.2.1. there was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
5.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

5.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
6. It is denied that the Defendant was in breach of any parking conditions or was not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.

7. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

7. Accordingly it is denied that:
7.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
7.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
7.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

8. There can be no ‘legitimate interest’ in penalising residents or their visitors for using parking spaces, under the excuse of a scheme where ostensibly and as far as the landowner is concerned, the parking firm is contracted for the benefit of the residents. It is unconscionable, contrary to the requirement of good faith and ‘out of all proportion to any legitimate interest’ to fine residents or their visitors for using allocated parking spaces.

Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
9. In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
9.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
9.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
9.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the British Parking Association’s ("BPA") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
9.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
9.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.
9.3 It is a forbidding sign that cannot create a contract. In the cases of B4GF26K6 PCM (UK) v Mr B, B4GF27K3 PCM (UK) v Mr W and B4GF26K2 PCM (UK) v Ms L it was demonstrated that forbidding signage at residential parking spaces did not create a contract.
10. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

11. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

12. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.
13. The Defendant disputes that the Claimant has incurred ‘Legal representative’s costs’ of £50 to prepare the claim. The Defendant refers the Court to the incompetent Particulars of Claim that disclose neither the basis for the claim nor a definite cause of action. I submit these ‘costs’ are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. The Court is invited to report Gladstones to the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority for this deliberate attempt to mislead the Court, in contravention of their Code of Conduct.

14. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.

15. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

16. I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

17. I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.


STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.

Le_Kirk

If that is a defence it should be written in the third person, so no "I" it should be "the Defendant". If the claimant has attempted to add spurious charges to the claim, use THIS thread written by beamerguy and in particular post # 14 (written by Coupon-mad) to add to your defence.