Advice on PCN progressed to County Court Claim

simjim66

Hi all

I am a newbie here, but have spent a lot of time reviewing Newbies links and recommended posts, a lot of it has been very useful.

I have a PCN from August 2018 which has now progressed to a court claim (County Court Business Centre, Northampton) so I felt I needed to start a new post.

Just some background first:

1. Over the course of 2 weeks in August 2018, I was issued with 5 separate PCN’s by post (no windscreen tickets) – after parking in a private car park over several days near work that I had parked in for years (it’s an abandoned property which is currently being demolished and is a construction site now).

2. The parking site never had a private parking company managing it, and was therefore not restricted parking in any way. At some point, a private company took over the car park (Enterprise Parking Solutions Ltd) and erected a single, almost invisible sign within the parking site – there is/was no sign at the entrance to the site, and any signage did not comply with the BPA signage guidelines. The signs had been newly erected, and the parking company simply preying on unsuspecting motorists who could not have seen the single, rather hidden sign, with very small font showing the Terms & Conditions of parking.

3. I successfully appealed one of the PCN with POPLA, on the grounds of woefully inadequate signage and Terms & Conditions, and had therefore not entered into a contract.

4. A second PCN was cancelled because of the incorrect vehicle registration on the PCN – they got my reg number wrong so I successfully appealed this.

5. That leaves 3 other PCN’s remaining that I am determined to fight. Unfortunately, I missed the deadlines to appeal these 3 initial PCN’s, as I was waiting to see what further action they would take – in hindsight not a good decision.

6. They served NTK letters, all of which I replied to stating I was the registered keeper (not the driver) and have since never named the driver.

7. In all 3 remaining PCN’s, the parking company made application to the DVLA for the registered keeper details, and sent Notice to Keeper letters. I responded to all 3, arguing again on the grounds of inadequate signage (based on the successfully appealed PCN with POPLA on the same grounds).

I have now received a county court claim form for one of the PCN's from what I can tell, County Court Business Centre). At first I thought this claim form was fraudulently issued, as I’ve seen a number of posts on fraudulent claim forms, specifically from the County Court Business Centre, and the poor quality of the claim form (poor quality of the court logo, seal, etc.)

I logged on to moneyclaim with the claim number and password, and the claim seems to be legit, i.e. there’s a record of it.

I have since disputed the whole claim with moneyclaim, but have not yet submitted a defence.

My questions are:

1. Can I defend this PCN in court on the same grounds as the successfully defended PCN with POPLA (based on poor signage)?

2. I understand that I should include more of a defence than just signage, i.e. challenge the sum being claimed far exceeds the £100 charge, etc.

3. Can I defend this on other grounds, for instance, that the parking site is no longer as it’s a building site.

Any advice please on how to approach the defence, or indeed any advice on the actual court claim – I still have about 10 days to file a defence within the 14 days required). Happy to provide any more info/docs for viewing.

Many thanks

TheDefender

1. Yes
2. You should
3. You can defend it on other grounds but not on the grounds you suggest in this question.

I'm newish here too but I'm confident of these answers.

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

simjim66

Issue date: 8 March 2019

Any particular reason why may I ask?

Redx

because KeithP will give you all the information you need to start this off from your end, dates and deadlines etc

he asks everyone that question if it is omitted, which you would know already if you had checked dozens or hundreds of other threads on here about court claims (clearly you have not noticed any pattern yet nor checked his posts by clicking on his profile and show all posts)

post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread is now your starter for ten as well, please read it

KeithP

simjim66 wrote: »

Issue date: 8 March 2019

With a Claim Issue Date of 8th March, you have until Wednesday 27th 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 10th April 2019 to file your Defence.

That's three weeks 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.

D_P_Dance

1. Can I defend this PCN in court on the same grounds as the successfully defended PCN with POPLA (based on poor signage)?

Yes and probably far more easily than at PoPLA.


2. I understand that I should include more of a defence than just signage, i.e. challenge the sum being claimed far exceeds the £100 charge, etc.

Challenge everything.

3. Can I defend this on other grounds, for instance, that the parking site is no longer as it’s a building site.

See above. Its current use is immaterial.

complain to your MP.

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. It received The Royal Assent today.
.

simjim66

Thanks for the info.

I have already completed the AoS, so will be finalising my defence over the next couple of days and will post it up here if I may.

Thanks again

simjim66

This is the PoC below:

The Claimants claim is for an outstanding parking charge issued to vehicle *REG NO* when parked at 58-70 York Road London SW11 3QD. The site is managed by the claimant. The Defendant is the keeper of or the driver in accordance with the Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 of the vehicle. Vehicles parking at the site are subject to the parking restrictions and terms and conditions which are set out on signs at the Site and form part of a contract between the driver of the vehicle and the Claimant. On 08 08 2018, the Vehicle was parked at the site in breach of the contract, the contravention being Authorised Vehicles Only. By entering this contract the Defendant agreed that they would be liable for £100.00 parking charges, plus additional contractual charges incured by the Claimant for the collection of the debt pursuant to the terms and conditions.

simjim66

And this is my draft defence - any comments, advice or critique would be appreciated please:

____________


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

ENTERPRISE PARKING SOLUTIONS LTD (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXX 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 Claimant asserts that the Defendant’s vehicle was parked on an Authorised Vehicles Only site, and in doing so entered into a contract with it. It further asserts that the Defendant breached the contract and must pay a contractual parking charge, with further undefined and unexplained additional charges. However, it is denied any contract existed. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

3. It is the Defendant’s understanding that there are three elements to a contract: offer, acceptance and consideration. An offer must be clearly communicated to an offeree. There was no offer communicated at the entrance to the car park, but only inside it - the Claimant’s inconspicuous signage setting out the terms and conditions were dotted around the site and could not be read and understood upon entry to the site, nor from any parking bay within the site.

4. In terms of entrance signage, the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, of which the Claimant is an accredited member, Clause 18.2 states: “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format.”

5. The terms and conditions on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, or even a stationary vehicle from any parking bay, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

6. Up until the material date, the parking site in question had been vacant and unmanaged private parking free for motorists to park, and not managed by the Claimant. Regarding changes to, or completely new parking terms and conditions, The BPA Code of Practice, Clause 18.10 states: “Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional/temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the new ones.”

7. In addition, the Particulars of Claim state that 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.

8. No evidence has been supplied by the Claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. The Defendant chooses to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is their right.

9. The Claimant’s sign states that parking is for 'Authorised Vehicles Only'. This does not specify what constitutes an ‘authorised vehicle’.

10. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation. 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.

11. 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 £82 for which no calculation or explanation is given, as well as £25 court fee, and £50 in legal costs, which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

12. The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case') yet such an assertion is not supported by any similarity in the location, circumstances nor signage. Absent any offer or agreement on a charge, the Beavis case does not assist the Claimant and in fact, supports this defence in that the Beavis Case was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner.

13. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping a note of wasted time and costs in dealing with this matter, with a view to claiming any reasonable losses connected with defending this claim and attending any hearings.

14. 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

Needs a look in the morning when we have time!