County Court Case - Help Needed

The_Deep

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 become so widespread that MPs agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Hopefully, this will become law by Easter .

Redneck61

Honestly... its pure daylight robbery. And if I also add to you guys that I've been through county court previously too! Its just that I didn't know about MSE Forums before or that there was any sort of help .

My previous case which was a year or two ago was with Gladstones Solicitors - all these parking charges were honestly - without even lying to you fake. An ANPR camera clocked me not even entering the car park but turning my car around daily from where it was positioned at the entrance. Long story short they had about 8 charges on me racking up to £1000+. I had no knowledge of how to defend so it was totally shambles, I didn't even submit a witness statement!! I was so reliant on a document I found from the land registry that proved that they didn't even own the piece of land where the camera was facing that I thought it'd be an easy win as soon as the judge sees the document.
So on the court day I arrived on my own, confident and the judge himself just told me after looking at the case - I'll give you an opportunity to settle it now as you can't go back if you go ahead and decide to defend. I was totally like WTH. The young lawyer employed by Gladstone said i can make you a deal and I ended up paying around £500 all at once to them....

A local guy who I know had the exact same situation from the same car park, same everything but he hired some lawyers who specialised in parking matters. They managed to defeat them lol but also claim back a huge sum which was a result for him.

But yeah either way, these parking companies are horrendous, the PCN's I received said I was parked for 4 hours, 1 day etc etc when I have never in my life parked in their car park so I learnt that they also lie explicitly.

Redneck61

Can someone help please, my deadline to submit the defence is coming and I think I should submit it by the end of this week to be safe.

I have striked out any of the sentences that don't go in line with me. Any help/input would be much appreciated

Thanks

KeithP

You have two whole weeks to file your Defence. Filing it by email, as described in my earlier post, is almost instantaneous.

Do not start panicking yet.

You left you draft Defence for over a week, during which time it dropped down to page twenty on the forum.
No-one would be looking that far back.

If you get no comments today/tomorrow then bump your thread to the top again.

Redneck61

Thank you KeithP. That’s a great relief lol! I didn’t want to start panicking but then thought what if...

That makes sense! I thought I’ll message on the thread again so you guys don’t forget me lol. And yes I do remember what you said about the timings. If it makes any difference I acknowledged 3 days after I received the claim form (so that’s 5 days after the date given on the claim form)

Thanks again

Coupon-mad

Just change it to make sense for your case.

Clearly those signs were not lit at 11pm...it was pitch black so no terms could be read.

Redneck61

Totally correct, they were not lit at all, it’s just a dark car park out of the city centre. Only source of lighting was nearby streetlights.

There was 3 signs however which they sent evidence of with locations marked on a satellite image.

The car park was very tiny, probably can fit around 10 cars or less so it did have signs in each corner but they definitely were not lit.

Thanks

Redneck61

And okay, I will make changes and post them back up here.

Redneck61

Hi there guys,

Thank you a lot for your help so far. I changed a few points and directed them about the lighting late at night. Please can someone check whether it seems okay and also can I get help for 5.2 - really not sure what to write in regards to my case for that point.

Regards..



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, appears from the sparse evidence supplied by this Claimant, to be parked on the material date on a public road, not on any yellow lines nor causing an obstruction.

2.1. It is denied that a 'charge notice' ('CN') was affixed to the car on the material date given in the Particulars. This Claimant is known to routinely affix misleading pieces of paper in a yellow/black envelope impersonating authority, bearing the legend 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice'. It is reasonable to conclude, from the date of the premature Notice to Keeper ('NTK') that was posted, that the hybrid note that the Claimant asserts was a 'CN' was no such thing, and therefore the driver was not served with a document that created any liability for any charge whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

2.2. Accordingly, it is denied that any contravention or breach of clearly signed/lined terms occurred, and it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge, either by signage or by a CN.

3. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. 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. 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. The car park was was completely unlit with no light on the signage at all, nearby street lights helped to see the road at most. With no means of seeing the signs at night it is questioned whether they were even there.

5.1. Vehicle registration XXXXX has not entered past the gate and therefore is not entered into a contract with Vehicle Control Services.

5.2. Even if the Court is minded to consider that the car did pass that sign, the terms of the sparse signage make no offer available; there is no licence to park.

5.3. At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass.

5.4. County Court transcripts supporting the Defendant's position will be adduced, and in all respects, the Beaviscase is distinguished.

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient propietary proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

6.1. It is suggested that this novel twist (unsupported by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 - the 'POFA') of placing hybrid notes stating 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice' on cars, then ambushing the registered keeper with a premature postal NTK, well before the timeline set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA, is unlikely to have been in the contemplation of the Claimant's principal.

6.2. It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, and as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor the other, and create no certainty of contract or charge whatsoever.

7. The POFA, 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. The claim includes an additional £60, 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.


(statement of truth and signature and date go here)

Redneck61

Just bumping this thread back up the board