N1 claim form received (Euro Parking Services)

headhacker

I have followed all the NEWBIES advice regarding a PCN received in July 2017. I am now at a stage where I have received N1SDT claim form from County Court Business centre.
I know I have to respond quickly to this letter, but need advice before I do so.

The PCN was received because the car had been parked in a neighbouring business' car park which has a meter installed. The car had been regularly parked here without any problems previously, apart from the meter regularly breaking down or the clock on the meter showing the incorrect time. A ticket had been purchased from the meter on every occasion.

The meter showed a tariff of:

1 Hour 50p
2hours £1
All Day £2.50

£2 was inserted into the machine to give 4 hours of parking.

A PCN was put on the car because the £2 had only given 2 hours of parking time and this was shown on the parking ticket (but not noticed after purchasing the ticket). The person issuing the PCN was spoken to by the driver as he was seen about to put the PCN on the windscreen, but as English was not the PCN issuer's first language, it was difficult to explain to them about the obvious error and that £2 had been paid which should have covered the 4 hours of parking.

Now, 18 months later and many letters received from both EPS and Gladstones it has resulted in the N1 claim form being received.

Advice would be gratefully received whether it is worth continuing the fight or to settle before it goes any further.

ShakeItOff

You won't find anyone on this forum suggesting you pay. But it is entirely your choice.

Have you read through Post 2 of the NEWBIES thread? That covers the court process and example defences and witness statements.

What is the issue date on your claim form?

Have you sent a Subject Access Request to Euro Parking Services yet? If not, use the Legal Beagles template in the NEWBIES post, and send via email to their DPO (email address is in their privacy policy, which is linked at the bottom of their website homepage).

The_Deep

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.

headhacker

the issue date is 22/2/19.

I have sent EPS a SAR, and also informed Gladstones that I have sent the SAR to their client.

I have also checked the previous letters from EPS with PCN details which show two photographs of my car, but not a photo of the parking ticket details. The reason for issue is "parked without displaying a valid ticket", although a ticket can be clearly seen on the dashboard. Should there be a photo of the ticket provided when they respond to the SAR?

thanks

beamerguy

headhacker wrote: »

the issue date is 22/2/19.

I have sent EPS a SAR, and also informed Gladstones that I have sent the SAR to their client.

I have also checked the previous letters from EPS with PCN details which show two photographs of my car, but not a photo of the parking ticket details. The reason for issue is "parked without displaying a valid ticket", although a ticket can be clearly seen on the dashboard. Should there be a photo of the ticket provided when they respond to the SAR?

thanks

If they want to prove their case then yes.
They need to prove there was no ticket clearly shown

KeithP

headhacker wrote: »

the issue date is 22/2/19.

With a Claim Issue Date of 22nd February, you have until Wednesday 13th March 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. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 27th March 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over a month 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.

headhacker

I had a reply from EPS telling me that they cannot process the SAR without checking my ID. From the newbies post, I see that I don’t need to provide passport or driving license etc so should I just send proof of address such as utility bill? They want 2 forms of ID and also a form filling in about what information I require (I stated exactly what I wanted in the original SAR request)

ShakeItOff

I sent a very heavily redacted copy of my passport and marriage certificate (as I had changed name and no longer owned the car), which I asked them to ensure they destroyed. You could send a heavily redacted utility bill and V5. And just resend the letter which will clearly state what you want (i.em all data related to you as data subject which they hold). Your letter is enough. You don't need to fill the form in. You can actually make a SAR verbally, so a form filling requirement is silly.

This is a stalling tactic by them as every day you don't provide this to them, the SAR clock doesn't start ticking.

headhacker

OK, so I have sent my redacted proof of ID to EPS. I guess they will take their time to send the details to me. I am now in the process of writing my defence. I have read a lot of threads on here (especially Irrelevant Defences and How To Avoid Them), but I am really not sure what I should put in as defence.

In my mind, I paid enough to cover me for the time I spent in the car park, I used the car park every day for several year before getting this ticket and I often paid the same amount and stayed the same amount of time. I was on good terms with the land owner (he was next door to my business), but I did not hear back from him when I contacted him to ask if could get the PCN cancelled.

Do I just list the facts as I see it? I have been staring at a blank screen and not sure where to start ( although I do keep reading many threads and a lot go to great detail for their defence).

I would appreciate any links or advice


Thanks

KeithP

Read again what ShakeItOff said in the first reply you received:

ShakeItOff wrote: »

Have you read through Post 2 of the NEWBIES thread? That covers the court process and example defences and witness statements.

In particular, look at the concise Defences written by Bargepole that you will find there.

There's a link to the NEWBIES thread - twice in fact - in my earlier post.

headhacker

I would appreciate a critique of my defence please (first draft) :



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

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

3. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXXXXXXXXX when it was parked at XXXXXXXX on XXXXXXXXX

4. The PCN stated the contravention as 'Parked without payment' and this contravention is denied. The Defendant denies liability for the purported parking charge (penalty), not least because it is already common ground that the correct parking charge (tariff) had already been paid.

5. In Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 –EGLR -154, it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach.

6. The Defendant had parked the vehicle at this location every day since the parking meter had been installed and paid the correct tariff each and every time. The Land owner is a business neighbour of the Defendant, and the Defendant had no reason to fail to pay.

7. The Defendant spoke to the ticketing officer at the time to explain that from the interpretation of the small Tariff displayed on the meter, that Z hours costs £X so Y hours costs £X

8. The Defendant paid £X and this was displayed on the ticket at XXXXpm on XXXXX

9. The Defendant states that the ticket machine would often break down and show incorrect clock times and error messages, so was unconcerned that the expiry time was XXXXX as the machine had not been working on days prior to the XXXXX and also many times subsequently. As can be seen from the Claimant’s photographs, the machine did not accept all current legal tender and had been poorly maintained.

10. The ticketing officer had English as a second language so misunderstood what the Defendant was trying to explain that the Site Owner was a business neighbour and was on good terms with the Defendant and that the issue could be resolved amicably when the Defendant contacted the Site Owner.

11. The Particulars of Claim states the Defendant agreed to pay the PCN with 28 days but the Defendant denies agreeing to pay as the Defendant believes the correct payment was paid to cover the Z hours of parking.

12. 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. The claim includes an additional £XXXX , and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

13. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £XX costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
14. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner, XXXXXXXX. XX therefore cannot overrule the elements of the lease or introduce them subsequently. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from XXXX to XXXXX , that XXXX has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, and that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

15. Furthermore, it is denied that the Claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be able to bind any reasonable person reading them. The sign is small, placed nowhere near the parking meter and in a position where a car parked below below the sign would make it difficult for the Defendant to read the sign as access is difficult (see Claimant’s photograph). There was only one sign in the car park at the time of the alleged offence as one other sign had been vandalised, therefore there was minimal signage for such a large car park.

16. The Defendant requested from the Claimant on XXXXX details of the alleged infringement such as all photographs, whether the charge is based on damages for breach of contract and proof that the clock timings were correct. The Defendant also explained again in the Claimant’s online form what the Defendant understands from tariff and disputes all alleged offences. The Defendant gave the Claimant 21 days to reply, but no response was received from the Claimant.




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.