Payment Didn't Go Through = Fine & Impending Court!

Spaceconcept

9. The signage on this site was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist.

a. The signage on and around the site in question was unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay the amount demanded by the Claimant, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.

b. The size of font of the prices advised for parking is much larger than the font of the contract and the offer is not sufficiently brought to the attention of the motorist, nor are the onerous terms (the £100 parking charge) sufficiently prominent to satisfy Lord Dennings "red hand rule”.!

c. In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.

e. The PayByPhone signage specifically states that there is “No need to display a ticket in your car” therefore there was no breach of any ‘relevant obligation’ or ‘relevant contract’ as required under Schedule 4 of POFA.

f. If the Claimant wanted to impose a condition to continuously display permits, then they should have drafted clear instruction to that effect, requiring specific terms of how to 'continuously display' when a paper ticket has not been issued or there is no contravention.

g. Where contract terms have different meanings, as in this instance when a paper ticket was not issued due to the chosen method of payment, then Section 69 of the CRA 2015 provides a statutory form of the contra proferentem rule, such that the consumer must be given the benefit of the doubt.

The term is fundamental to the contract, and the Defendant invites the Court to find that it is not transparent and therefore unfair. If a fundamental term to the contract is deemed to be unfair, then the contract will cease to bind the parties. The Defence invites the Court to take these issues into account in determining the fairness of the term.

I’m not sure if all this is the case or is relevant?

Spaceconcept

10. The Claimant’s representatives, QDR Solicitors, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £??? to £269.92. The Defendant submits the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; that these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts.

a. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”.

b. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £xx to £269.92. This appears to be an added cost with no apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

b. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

What is the first figure I should use in this? The cost of the parking or the cost of the initial fine?

Also, is the £269.92 correct, should this be £194.92? As the court costs are identified as £75 (194+75=269).



Non-disclosure of reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim:

11. Civil Enforcement are not the lawful occupier of the land. The Defendant has reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in

their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.

a. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the

landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.

b. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a

vehicle parking at the location in question

c. The Claimant is put to 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

d. The Particulars of Claim are deficient in establishing whether the claim is brought in trespass. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis vs ParkingEye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

Spaceconcept

12. The Particulars of Claim fail to fulfil CPR Part 16.4 because it does not include a statement of the facts on which the claimant relies, only referring to a Parking Charge Notice with no further description; it fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence:

‘Claim for monies realting to a Parking Charge for parking in a private car park managed by the Claimant in breach of terms + conditions (T+Cs). Drivers are allowed to park in accordance with T+Cs of use. ANPR cameras and/or manual patrols are used to monitor vehicles entering + existing the site. Debt + damages claimed the sum of 182.00.

Violation date: 04/04/2018

Time in: 19:54 Time out: 22:24

PCN ref: Ref378XXXXX

Car registration no: XXXXX Car Park Towndene

!

Total due – 182.00

(ref:https://www.ce-service.co.uk or Tel:01158225020

The Claimant claims the sum of 194.92 for monies relating to a parking charge per above including 12.92 interest pursuant to S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 Rate 8.00% pa from dates above to 22/02/19

Same rate to Judgement or (sooner) payment

Daily rate to Judgement- 0.04

Total debt and interest due- 194.92

Copied verbatim from claim doc.

!

13. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.

a) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.

b) The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.

c) The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.

d) The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence.

It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action

Spaceconcept

14. The Defendant invites the court to strike out or dismiss the claim under Rule 3.4(2)(a) of PRACTICE DIRECTION 3A as having not set out a concise statement of the nature of the claim or disclosed reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim (Part 16.4(1)(a) and PRACTICE DIRECTION 16 paragraphs 3.1-3.8). In C3GF84Y (Mason, Plymouth County Court), the judge struck out the claim brought by KBT Cornwall Ltd as Gladstones Solicitors had not submitted proper Particulars of Claim, and similar reasons were cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''. The Practice Direction also sets out the following example which is analogous to this claim: ‘those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’.’

Is this relevant?

!

15. Section removed. Investigations relating to Gladstones Solicitors. Is there a QDR equivalent?

!

16. 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. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims and the solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

I assume this is the case with QDR solicitors?

Spaceconcept

17. The Defendant believes the terms 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. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to their significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.


18. The Defendant respectfully suggests 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.


19. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

20. The Defendant invites the court to dismiss this claim out as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under Practice Direction 16, set out by the Ministry of Justice and also Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under 16.4 and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true

Spaceconcept

Got there in the end, thanks to the wonders of mobile technology.
Problem seemed to be related to the length of the posts.

Anyway, please have a read.

Thanks!

KeithP

You may have missed post #31.

Le_Kirk

Well, that's very long, did you read the concisely written defences by Bargepole? Maybe take a look at two or three of those and adapt them to suit your circumstances.

Got there in the end, thanks to the wonders of mobile technology.

Forum does not work well when trying to use a mobile.

Spaceconcept

Yes it is long, but this the defence referred to in the sticky thread.

I will take a look at the Bargepole concise versions.

Spaceconcept

I did see post 31 Keith, but was locked out on the work laptop. Thanks for the info about word, I'll bear it in mind when posting my revised (and far shorter) defence.