Urgent help please!

Redx

see post #2 of that NEWBIES thread, use a laptop , NOT a mobile phone

you will find many examples linked from it

all you need to know is in there, so especially read the links to BARGEPOLE posts

Coupon-mad

Having read the NEWBIES thread re AOS, how have you missed the example defences?

The_Deep

Looking for a space is not parking, use this in court.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=31+minutes+is+not+parking+prankster&form=EDNTHT&mkt=en-gb&httpsmsn=1&refig=99e85af7cf6b45d2f1ac7825598e03cd&PC=ACTS&sp=-1&pq=31+minutes+&sc=5-11&qs=n&sk=&cvid=99e85af7cf6b45d2f1ac7825598e03cd

£240 is far more than the Law allows for this sort of claim. The down market solicitors whom the PPCs engage know this, but, because they are solicitors, know that a lot of people will pay up.

It is in fact double charging and non claimable debt collectors' add ons. Imo, this is fraud, or, at the very least, improper conduct.

Were this to get to court and they won, the judge would be unlikely to award the claimant more than £175 - £200.

I urge you to report this grubby law firm to their regulatory body, the SRA.

https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/code/content.page

as I am sure they do not condone this conduct.

The whole industry is a scam, relying on threats of court, and the public's ignorance of the Law, A bill is currently before parliament which will regulate the scammers, many of whom are ex-clampers.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Second Reading in the Lords this month, and, with a fair wind, will l become Law later this year..

All five readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 7-8 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

Mattdab

This has been reported to the SRA and I have typed this up as an initial attempt at a defence.

I have used a lot of parts from previously written defences so it may be that it will need re writing but if anyone would be able to inform me I would be extremely grateful!

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No:

BETWEEN:

National Car Parks Limited (Claimant)

-and-

Mr XXXXXX (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 XXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was not parked on the material date and the driver of said vehicle merely drove into the Britannia Shopping Centre car park, could not find a space of sufficient size to gain access to the rear doors of the vehicle, preventing the driver from being able to remove his/her children from said vehicle. Before driving out again to find alternative means of parking.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant Mr XXXXX;was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s) XXXXX;. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply 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 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

4. 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. The terms on the Claimant's website under section 5.4 that “By parking your vehicle in the Car Park you consent to us capturing, using and processing your VRM and personal details via CCTV and ANPR for enforcement purposes, to calculate the relevant parking tariff (if applicable) and to recover any outstanding Parking Charge. This includes our right to request and obtain the details of a vehicle’s registered keeper from the DVLA.”
As the driver did not Park, would therefore not fall under the terms and conditions of which the Claimant states.
Meaning the driver of vehicle XXXXX did not consent to capturing, using and processing the vehicle registration or personal details.
To then calculate the parking tariff if applicable, which could only be applicable if the driver was to park.
Furthering on this, the driver also did not comply to the terms of consenting to recover any claimed Parking Charge Notices.

6. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner on entry to the car park which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

7. 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 £100. Or £60 within a 14day discount period. The claim includes an additional £142.40 to total £242.40, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

8. 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.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

That's a good start.

This isn't a sentence:

Before driving out again to find alternative means of parking.

Remove this explanation which isn't needed and is hard to understand:

Meaning the driver of vehicle XXXXX did not consent to capturing, using and processing the vehicle registration or personal details.
To then calculate the parking tariff if applicable, which could only be applicable if the driver was to park.
Furthering on this, the driver also did not comply to the terms of consenting to recover any claimed Parking Charge Notices.

Add in the usual point from any other example defence, that the Claimant is not the landowner and there is no authority, etc. That can be vital to include!

And add a point citing the BPA Code of Practice section 13 on Grace periods.

Mattdab

Second revision! If anyone could proof read and check that would be brilliant!

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: Xxxxx

BETWEEN:

National Car Parks Limited (Claimant)

-and-

Mr xxxxxx (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 Xxxxx, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was not parked on the material date and the driver of said vehicle merely drove into the Britannia Shopping Centre car park, could not find a space of sufficient size to gain access to the rear doors of the vehicle, preventing the driver from being able to remove his/her children from said vehicle.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant Mr Xxxxxx;was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s) Xxxxx;. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply 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 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

4. 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. The terms on the Claimant's website under section 5.4 state that “By parking your vehicle in the Car Park you consent to us capturing, using and processing your VRM and personal details via CCTV and ANPR for enforcement purposes, to calculate the relevant parking tariff (if applicable) and to recover any outstanding Parking Charge. This includes our right to request and obtain the details of a vehicle’s registered keeper from the DVLA.”
As the driver did not Park, this would therefore not fall under the terms and conditions of which the Claimant states.

6. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner on entry to the car park which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. 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 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.

8. Under the British Parking Association Code of Practice, Version 7, Section 13, 13.1, states that drivers must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into a ‘parking contract’. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, they must be provided with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by a parking contract.

9. 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 £100. Or £60 within a 14day discount period. The claim includes an additional £142.40 to total £242.40, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

10. 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.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Mattdab

I have until 27th of March but I would really appreciate any further input before I send off my defence!
Thanks

Coupon-mad

I would put all this together as point #6 so it's isolated and clear:

Having been denied any suitable parking space as was advertised at the entrance, despite driving round and round the site, the driver could accept no parking contract, and drove out within minutes, to find alternative means of parking. As the car was not parked, this would not fall under the terms & conditions of the Claimant's sign. The elements of a contract - consideration flowing from both sides, and acceptance by conduct - did not exist.

Mattdab

Defence has been sent as per instructions from KeithP and it’s already registering on MCOL!

I am now awaiting the DQ and plan on using the information set out by Bargepole in ‘Court Claim Procedure’ post

I will update as and when
Thanks for everyone’s input and help so far

Mattdab

So, another update!

Received a letter from HM courts and tribunals service dated 11th March (didn’t receive until after my last post oddly)
Stating they have served a copy to the claimant (or solicitor) The claimant may contact me and if the dispute cannot be resolved informally, the claimant will inform the court they wish to proceed.
They have 28 days to notify the courts, after that time period has elapsed, the claim will be stayed.

It doesn’t state 28 full days or 28 working days? However 28 full days was today and yet I haven’t had any contact whatsoever, MCOL hasn’t changed and is still saying “defended”
Should I expect contact from the court this week? How often at this stage do the parking firms/solicitors on their behalf just give up and not carry on?

Also, received back my SAR, photos etc and it appears the photo’s of my car on the said day have been doctored or altered.
It’s the same photos with the same date as my original letter, yet the entry time has now changed on the time stamp to an hour before the actual entry time from 14:52 to 13:52 (the time on the original PCN form says 14:52)
Yet the exit time remains the same at 15:07, for one, that’s not possible as I have my work clockcard from that day and didn’t finish until my usual time of 14:30. And it means they have provided me with two pieces of the same documentation, both with different times?!
This looks like they are altering evidence to try and back their case, surely they wouldn’t be that stupid? Or could it be something else?

Any input/opinions would be great Thanks