We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Defence Statement
forumuserc
Posts: 5 Forumite
Outline of case:
Vehicle parked in allocated residential space for the property that I rented (same place car had been parked for 5 years...). Parking ticket for not displaying a permit from UK CPM, which has now escalated to Claim Form via Gladstones & Northampton County Court Business Centre.
In addition to the normal arguments, the address they have listed on the claim is incorrect (they have stated an access road outside the actual street) and the markings of my space were not present (they stuck signs on the pavement and they mostly came off).
This is the defence I have put together, which I would appreciate input and feedback for from the experts that read this particular forum please (it's an amalgamation of a few sample defences from this forum - thanks for these and all posts on this forum):
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: XXX
BETWEEN:
UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)
-and-
XXX (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE STATEMENT
________________________________________
PRELIMINARY
1. The Defendant denies that The Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to a 'Parking Charge' incurred on XXX. However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for these charges, in that they do not state what the terms of parking were, or in what way they are alleged to have been breached. In addition, the particulars state 'The Defendant as the driver/keeper of the Vehicle’ which indicates 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.
3. The Defendant is therefore prejudiced and, in addition, the length of time since the incident and The Defendant neither living at the property nor owning the vehicle any more, as well as a lack of response from The Claimant in regards to a Subject Access Request for all relevant information, means The Defendant is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should The Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit The Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.
4. The Particulars refer to the material location as 'XXX'. The Defendant had, between XXX and XXX, held a tenancy under the terms of a (undisclosed) lease, to YYY, which is NOT at the stated location. The Claimants claim therefore has no merit, regardless of all other facts and precedents forthwith.
BACKGROUND
5. It is admitted that at all material times The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXX which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle was insured with XXX at the time with two named drivers permitted to use it. It has not been proven which of these was the driver at the time.
5.1 It is denied that The Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
5.2. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that The Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that The Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing The Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA").
5.3. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA The Claimant must demonstrate that:
5.3.1. there was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
5.3.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
5.4. It is not admitted that The Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.
5.5. To the extent that The Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exists, The Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, The Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.
DEFENCE
6. As per point 4. it is NOT admitted that the Defendant's vehicle was parked at 'XXX' on the XXX, as stated on the particulars of claim.
7. In addition, the number marking the allocated parking space had not been maintained such that it was not present. As the parking company had not properly administered their scheme, any permit corresponding to its matching space would not be relevant.
8. Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
8.1 In the alternative, it is denied that The Defendant or lawful users of his vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to The Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of XXX, whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on said land. The Defendant relies on primacy of contract and avers that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing is in fact a matter of tortious interference, being a private nuisance to residents.
8.2 The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. There are no terms within the lease requiring lessees to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of same.
8.2.1. The Defendant, at all material times, parked in accordance with the terms granted by the lease. The erection of the Claimant's signage, and the purported contractual terms conveyed therein, are incapable of binding the Defendant in any way, and their existence does not constitute a legally valid variation of the terms of the lease or tenancy agreements, none of which the parking firm is party to.
8.2.2 The Claimant, or Managing Agent, in order to establish a right to impose unilateral terms which vary the terms of the lease, must have such variation approved by at least 75% of the leaseholders, pursuant to s37 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987, and the Defendant is unaware of any such vote having been passed by the residents.
8.2.3. Accordingly, the Defendant denies having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct.
8.3 The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot
8.3.1 override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and
8.3.2 that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease.
8.3.3 The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. Additionally, in Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant’s right to park by requiring a permit to park. In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant’s right to park by requiring a permit to park.
8.4 Accordingly, it is denied that:
8.4.1 there was any agreement between The Defendant or driver of the vehicle and The Claimant
8.4.2 there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit
9. Signage and No offer
9.1. In the alternative, the signs refer to 'Terms of parking without permission', and suggest that by parking without permission, motorists are contractually agreeing to a parking charge of £100. This is clearly a nonsense, since if there is no permission, there is no offer, and therefore no contract.
9.2. This is clear from several cases:
9.2.1. In PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], residents were parking on access roads. The signage forbade parking and so no contract was in place. A trespass had occurred, but that meant only the landowner could claim, not the parking company.
9.2.2. In UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016] it was also found the signage was forbidding and so the matter was one of trespass. The parking company did not have standing to claim.
9.2.3. In Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] it was also found the signage was forbidding and so the matter was one of trespass. The parking company did not have standing to claim.
10. Lack of commercial value or loss
10.1. In the alternative, The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant's position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.
10.2 The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
10.3 The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.
10.4. In this case the Claimant has taken over the location and runs a business as if the site were a public car park, offering terms with £100 penalty on the same basis to residents, as is on offer to the general public and trespassers.
10.5 Furthermore, In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E it was established that ParkingEye vs Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 does not apply to residential parking, and this will therefore bring the penalty doctrine back in play. The charge will therefore likely be a penalty and unfair consumer charge unless it is found the charge is a pre-estimate of loss or there is commercial justification. The Supreme Court found that £85 was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss in Beavis as there was no direct loss to the parking company. Similarly, it would be hard to establish commercial justification for charging residents hundreds of pounds a year to park in their own parking spaces.
10.6. Accordingly, it is denied that The Claimant has suffered loss or damage, or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
ADDITION OF UNRECOVERABLE SUMS
11.1. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £60 to the original £100 parking charge, for which no justification has been provided other than it forming ‘contractual costs’. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.
11.2. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated, and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 legal representatives’ costs were incurred. The Defendant believes that UK Car Park Management Limited has artificially inflated this claim. They are claiming legal costs when not only is this not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that they have not incurred legal costs. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.
11.3. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.
11.4. The claimant has not fully explained how the claim has increased from the original parking notice to £2xx.43. If the Claimant alleges that they claim the cost of its in-house administration, these cannot be recovered - they are staff performing the task that they have been employed for and essential to the Claimant's business plan.
11.5. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.
CLOSING
12. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.
13. For all or any of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss the Claim in its entirety, and to award the Defendant such costs as are allowable on the small claims track, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14. Given that the claim is based on an alleged contractual parking charge of £100 - already significantly inflated and mostly representing profit, as was found in Beavis - but the amount claimed on the claim form is inexplicably £2xx.43, the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.
14. Given that it appears that this Claimant's conduct provides for no cause of action, and this is intentional and contumelious, the Claimant's claim must fail and the court is invited to strike it out.
14.1. In the alternative, the Court is invited, under the Judge's own discretionary case management powers, to set a preliminary hearing to examine the question of this Claimant's substantial interference with easements, rights and 'primacy of contract' of residents at this site, to put an end to not only this litigation but to send a clear message to the Claimant to case wasting the court's time by bringing beleaguered residents to court under excuse of a contractual breach that cannot lawfully exist.
GROUNDS FOR COUNTER CLAIM
15. Data Protection
If a parking company attains personal information from the DVLA (which The Claimant has done) for a situation where a charge is not valid, then it is highly likely that a breach of data protection laws has taken place. In this situation the case of Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) provides authority that misuse of personal data is a tort and that damages may be non-pecuniary. The case of Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199 provides authority that a reasonable sum for compensation would be £750.
16. Trespass
In Davey v UKPC, Mr Davey sued UKPC for trespass for placing tickets on his vehicle which was parked on his own land. He won the case and was awarded £150 damages for trespass and £1280.26 in costs. Whilst the land was not owned by me, it was demised to me as part of the tenancy agreement, which retained ‘quiet enjoyment’.
"I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true."
XXX
…………………………………..
20th March 2019
Vehicle parked in allocated residential space for the property that I rented (same place car had been parked for 5 years...). Parking ticket for not displaying a permit from UK CPM, which has now escalated to Claim Form via Gladstones & Northampton County Court Business Centre.
In addition to the normal arguments, the address they have listed on the claim is incorrect (they have stated an access road outside the actual street) and the markings of my space were not present (they stuck signs on the pavement and they mostly came off).
This is the defence I have put together, which I would appreciate input and feedback for from the experts that read this particular forum please (it's an amalgamation of a few sample defences from this forum - thanks for these and all posts on this forum):
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: XXX
BETWEEN:
UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)
-and-
XXX (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE STATEMENT
________________________________________
PRELIMINARY
1. The Defendant denies that The Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to a 'Parking Charge' incurred on XXX. However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for these charges, in that they do not state what the terms of parking were, or in what way they are alleged to have been breached. In addition, the particulars state 'The Defendant as the driver/keeper of the Vehicle’ which indicates 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.
3. The Defendant is therefore prejudiced and, in addition, the length of time since the incident and The Defendant neither living at the property nor owning the vehicle any more, as well as a lack of response from The Claimant in regards to a Subject Access Request for all relevant information, means The Defendant is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should The Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit The Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.
4. The Particulars refer to the material location as 'XXX'. The Defendant had, between XXX and XXX, held a tenancy under the terms of a (undisclosed) lease, to YYY, which is NOT at the stated location. The Claimants claim therefore has no merit, regardless of all other facts and precedents forthwith.
BACKGROUND
5. It is admitted that at all material times The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXX which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle was insured with XXX at the time with two named drivers permitted to use it. It has not been proven which of these was the driver at the time.
5.1 It is denied that The Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
5.2. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that The Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that The Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing The Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA").
5.3. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA The Claimant must demonstrate that:
5.3.1. there was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
5.3.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
5.4. It is not admitted that The Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.
5.5. To the extent that The Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exists, The Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, The Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.
DEFENCE
6. As per point 4. it is NOT admitted that the Defendant's vehicle was parked at 'XXX' on the XXX, as stated on the particulars of claim.
7. In addition, the number marking the allocated parking space had not been maintained such that it was not present. As the parking company had not properly administered their scheme, any permit corresponding to its matching space would not be relevant.
8. Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
8.1 In the alternative, it is denied that The Defendant or lawful users of his vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to The Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of XXX, whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on said land. The Defendant relies on primacy of contract and avers that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing is in fact a matter of tortious interference, being a private nuisance to residents.
8.2 The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. There are no terms within the lease requiring lessees to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of same.
8.2.1. The Defendant, at all material times, parked in accordance with the terms granted by the lease. The erection of the Claimant's signage, and the purported contractual terms conveyed therein, are incapable of binding the Defendant in any way, and their existence does not constitute a legally valid variation of the terms of the lease or tenancy agreements, none of which the parking firm is party to.
8.2.2 The Claimant, or Managing Agent, in order to establish a right to impose unilateral terms which vary the terms of the lease, must have such variation approved by at least 75% of the leaseholders, pursuant to s37 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987, and the Defendant is unaware of any such vote having been passed by the residents.
8.2.3. Accordingly, the Defendant denies having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct.
8.3 The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot
8.3.1 override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and
8.3.2 that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease.
8.3.3 The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. Additionally, in Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant’s right to park by requiring a permit to park. In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant’s right to park by requiring a permit to park.
8.4 Accordingly, it is denied that:
8.4.1 there was any agreement between The Defendant or driver of the vehicle and The Claimant
8.4.2 there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit
9. Signage and No offer
9.1. In the alternative, the signs refer to 'Terms of parking without permission', and suggest that by parking without permission, motorists are contractually agreeing to a parking charge of £100. This is clearly a nonsense, since if there is no permission, there is no offer, and therefore no contract.
9.2. This is clear from several cases:
9.2.1. In PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], residents were parking on access roads. The signage forbade parking and so no contract was in place. A trespass had occurred, but that meant only the landowner could claim, not the parking company.
9.2.2. In UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016] it was also found the signage was forbidding and so the matter was one of trespass. The parking company did not have standing to claim.
9.2.3. In Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] it was also found the signage was forbidding and so the matter was one of trespass. The parking company did not have standing to claim.
10. Lack of commercial value or loss
10.1. In the alternative, The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant's position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.
10.2 The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
10.3 The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.
10.4. In this case the Claimant has taken over the location and runs a business as if the site were a public car park, offering terms with £100 penalty on the same basis to residents, as is on offer to the general public and trespassers.
10.5 Furthermore, In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E it was established that ParkingEye vs Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 does not apply to residential parking, and this will therefore bring the penalty doctrine back in play. The charge will therefore likely be a penalty and unfair consumer charge unless it is found the charge is a pre-estimate of loss or there is commercial justification. The Supreme Court found that £85 was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss in Beavis as there was no direct loss to the parking company. Similarly, it would be hard to establish commercial justification for charging residents hundreds of pounds a year to park in their own parking spaces.
10.6. Accordingly, it is denied that The Claimant has suffered loss or damage, or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
ADDITION OF UNRECOVERABLE SUMS
11.1. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £60 to the original £100 parking charge, for which no justification has been provided other than it forming ‘contractual costs’. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.
11.2. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated, and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 legal representatives’ costs were incurred. The Defendant believes that UK Car Park Management Limited has artificially inflated this claim. They are claiming legal costs when not only is this not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that they have not incurred legal costs. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.
11.3. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.
11.4. The claimant has not fully explained how the claim has increased from the original parking notice to £2xx.43. If the Claimant alleges that they claim the cost of its in-house administration, these cannot be recovered - they are staff performing the task that they have been employed for and essential to the Claimant's business plan.
11.5. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.
CLOSING
12. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.
13. For all or any of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss the Claim in its entirety, and to award the Defendant such costs as are allowable on the small claims track, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14. Given that the claim is based on an alleged contractual parking charge of £100 - already significantly inflated and mostly representing profit, as was found in Beavis - but the amount claimed on the claim form is inexplicably £2xx.43, the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.
14. Given that it appears that this Claimant's conduct provides for no cause of action, and this is intentional and contumelious, the Claimant's claim must fail and the court is invited to strike it out.
14.1. In the alternative, the Court is invited, under the Judge's own discretionary case management powers, to set a preliminary hearing to examine the question of this Claimant's substantial interference with easements, rights and 'primacy of contract' of residents at this site, to put an end to not only this litigation but to send a clear message to the Claimant to case wasting the court's time by bringing beleaguered residents to court under excuse of a contractual breach that cannot lawfully exist.
GROUNDS FOR COUNTER CLAIM
15. Data Protection
If a parking company attains personal information from the DVLA (which The Claimant has done) for a situation where a charge is not valid, then it is highly likely that a breach of data protection laws has taken place. In this situation the case of Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) provides authority that misuse of personal data is a tort and that damages may be non-pecuniary. The case of Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199 provides authority that a reasonable sum for compensation would be £750.
16. Trespass
In Davey v UKPC, Mr Davey sued UKPC for trespass for placing tickets on his vehicle which was parked on his own land. He won the case and was awarded £150 damages for trespass and £1280.26 in costs. Whilst the land was not owned by me, it was demised to me as part of the tenancy agreement, which retained ‘quiet enjoyment’.
"I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true."
XXX
…………………………………..
20th March 2019
0
Comments
-
Hi and welcome.
What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?0 -
Issue Date 22 Feb 2019.
Acknowledgement of Service completed 26 Feb 2019.
Defence due by (I believe) 27 Mar 2019.
SAR Request to Gladstones & UK CPM sent 26 Feb 2019.
SAR info received from Gladstones but received a response from UK CPM wanting more personal information to identify me, which they said reset their 30 day clock for the SAR0 -
You are right with your Defence due date but there might be something useful here...forumuserc wrote: »Issue Date 22 Feb 2019.
Acknowledgement of Service completed 26 Feb 2019.
Defence due by (I believe) 27 Mar 2019.
With a Claim Issue Date of 22nd February, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 27th March 2019 to file your Defence.
That's just over a week away. Loads of time to produce a Defence, and it's good to see that you are not leaving 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.
- Sign it and date it.
- Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
- Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
- 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'.
- Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
- Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
- 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.
0 - Sign it and date it.
-
anything that starts with DEFENCE STATEMENT is an old defence, the word STATEMENT does not belong in there for starters
look at the concise DEFENCE by member BARGEPOLE , and build on that one, using the same header and footer as he used0 -
You seem to have covered all the bases. Have you considered complaining to your MP? It can cost the scammer money if they bother to answer it.
On 18th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these private parking companies. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.
Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted
Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.
Are you familiar with unreasonable behaviour costs, {CPR27.14(2)(g)}
?You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
I'm not familiar with unreasonable behaviour costs, {CPR27.14(2)(g)} but put it in there (pt 11.2 & 13) as per templates I'd seen.0
-
What are people's thoughts on including the 'Grounds for Counter Claim' part at the end, as part of the Defence?
I thought it might add beef so that when Gladstones read it, they'll see that if they lose (which they should) it will open up a can of worms for them for further penalties, so they might be best to withdraw proceedings early doors.0 -
But you have to have a reason for a counterclaim (being hissed off by the PPC/Solicitors is not a reason). You will know why you want to counterclaim.
How much do you wish to counterclaim for? You do know you have to pay a filing fee for a cc at the time of submitting it with your defence?
Can you cogently argue your cc in front of a Judge, and if it's for a relatively serious amount (£300+ ?), the PPC might just instruct an adversarial lawyer to defend the cc - can you take on one of those?
And if the issuing of the cc is simply to make life difficult for the PPC, it might not sit too well with a Judge. If you're deemed to have been unreasonable in bringing the cc by the court, you open yourself up to potentially significant costs being awarded against you.
You need to go into this with your eyes wide open.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
Thanks Umkomaas, I'll remove the counterclaim arguments unless anyone suggests otherwise - it was on an old defence I got from the forum but note it isn't in Bargepoles most recent concise residential parking space defence. I thought it was more a reasons I could counterclaim rather than reasons I will.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards