Claim Form Received from County Court Business Centre - for private parking charge notice

JonSnow012

Hi all, I have had an attempt at the defence statement, any feedback would be greatly appreciated!



In The County Court!
Claim No: XXXXXXX
Between
UKCPS Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper but was not the driver of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Defendant denies that the signs at the location followed the Claimant's trade association Code of Practice

3. The Defendant has asked the Claimants solicitor for a site map and photographs of the signs, but nothing was provided

4. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the capacity to take legal action in this matter

5. The Defendant has asked the Claimant's solicitor for the documentary evidence required by its client's Code of Practice Para B (1.1) that demonstrates sufficient right to occupy the land in question. The request has been ignored

6. Further based upon the scant and deficient details contained in the Particulars of Claim and correspondence, it appears to be the Claimant's case that:!
a. There was a contract formed by the Defendant and the Claimant on XX/XX/2017.!
b. There was an agreement to pay a sum or parking charge!
c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site!
d. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.
e. The Claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.!

7. It is denied that:
a. A contract was formed
b. There was an agreement to pay a parking charge.
c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site.!
d. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.!
e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.!

8. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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.

9. The Defendant denies that they would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.!
a. The amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council which is set at £70 or £35 if paid within 14 days.!

10. In summary, the Claimant's disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

Your Claimant is UK Car Park Management limited, not UKCPS (a different firm).

I really do not like this style of defence and we stopped doing this two years ago (reiterating the Claimant's case? No thanks!):

6. Further based upon the scant and deficient details contained in the Particulars of Claim and correspondence, it appears to be the Claimant's case that:
a. There was a contract formed by the Defendant and the Claimant on XX/XX/2017.
b. There was an agreement to pay a sum or parking charge
c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site
d. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.
e. The Claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.

7. It is denied that:
a. A contract was formed
b. There was an agreement to pay a parking charge.
c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site.
d. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.
e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.

Also this is old too, not sure where this was found but delete it. The level of Council penalty charges is not relevant (at the moment at least):

9. The Defendant denies that they would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.
a. The amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council which is set at £70 or £35 if paid within 14 days.

IMHO you have not said enough about the signage or about what the driver (who you are denying is you? Good, if true) actually happened and what was the contravention alleged.

JonSnow012

Thank you for your response Coupon-Mad. I've taken out the parts were not relevant. What happened was the driver at the time of the incidents did not see that they were entering into unauthorised land and the signage displayed clearly on exiting which is my means to fight the case. I have explained this better in the defence now.

In The County Court
Claim No: XXXXXXX
Between
UK Car Park Management Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts of the matter are that the vehicle of registration number xxxxx, of which the Defendant was the registered keeper but, not the driver of on the material dates was parked in an unauthorised bay.
2. The Defendant denies the charge for Unauthorised parking on the basis that the signs at the location followed the Claimant's trade association Code of Practice. Signs were not displayed clearly and prominently around the site or exits, therefore, the driver had no knowledge it was parking in an unauthorised bay.
3. The IPC guidelines state that signage at the entrance to the site should ‘Make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land’. The signage at the entrance to the site in question does not display this information
4. Part E schedule 1 of the IPC guidelines states, “You are required to provide a sufficient number of signs on each site commensurate with its size and other characteristics” The signage around the car park was deficient in number, distribution, tiny wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation.
5. The Defendant has asked the Claimants solicitor for a site map and photographs of the signs, but nothing was provided
6. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the capacity to take legal action in this matter
7. The Defendant has asked the Claimant's solicitor for the documentary evidence required by its client's Code of Practice Para B (1.1) that demonstrates sufficient right to occupy the land in question. The request has been ignored

8. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
9. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
10. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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.
11. In summary, the Claimant's disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Coupon-mad

I think that's better - but this is not enough - replace it with the usual point that we see about 'no proprietary interest', as seen in pretty much every defence:

6. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the capacity to take legal action in this matter

JonSnow012

I have done some more research into the forums and added some more points with depth, does this sound any better and which areas do you think I need to focus more on. Thanks in advance.

In The County Court
Claim No: XXXXXXX
Between
UK Car Park Management Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts of the matter are that the vehicle of registration number xxxxx, of which the Defendant was the registered keeper but, not the driver of on the material dates was parked in an unauthorised bay.
3. The Defendant denies the charge for Unauthorised parking on the basis that the signs at the location followed the Claimant's trade association Code of Practice. Signs were not displayed clearly and prominently around the site at the entrance or exits; therefore, the driver had no knowledge it was parking entering on to private land or parking in an unauthorised bay.
4. 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 who would be able to read them. Not to mention the signs are also located at a distance, insufficient in number and placed high creating an illegible condition to read the terms and conditions required to enter a contract. The doctrine of contra proferentem applies and the interpretation that most favours a consumer must prevail; that being that the driver(s) did not see or accept the sum the Claimant says they did.
a. The IPC guidelines state that signage at the entrance to the site should ‘Make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land’. There is no signage clearly displaying the parking conditions at the entrance of the site and no clear signs stating the driver is entering onto private land.
5. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim as the signage is a “forbidding offer”, which isn’t an offer at all, which means there can be no contract.
6. The Defendant has asked the Claimants solicitor for a site map and photographs of the signs, but nothing was provided
7. The Defendant has asked the Claimant's solicitor for the documentary evidence required by its client's Code of Practice Para B (1.1) that demonstrates sufficient right to occupy the land in question. The request has been ignored
8. UK Car Parking Management Ltd lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim
9. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
10. In the Defendant's case, there was no prominent contract for the defendant to read and accept. The Defendant avers that the factually-different Beavis decision confirms the assertion that this charge is unconscionable, given the facts of this case. To quote from the Supreme Court:
a. Para 108: ''But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85''.
b. Para 199: ''What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 [...] is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests. Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so.''
c. Para 205: ''The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.''10. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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.
11. The Claimant has inexplicably added £60 in 'costs' bolted onto both £100 PCNs, despite using a solicitor to file the claim, who must understand the CPR 27.14 does not permit such 'admin' charges to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.
a. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred and that it formed a prominent, legible part of any terms on signage, and that it was, in fact, expended. The Claimant harassed the Defendant with debt collector demands but these are sent on a no-win-no-fee basis by the likes of Debt Recovery Plus who advertise they only charge when they collect monies. To add £60 per PCN, plus alleged 'legal costs' on top is a wholly disingenuous attempt at double recovery, and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.
b. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant had not incurred any damages, nor admin, nor legal costs that are not already encompassed within the inflated “parking charge” (that the Supreme Court held in Beavis, was mostly profit and more than covers the very minimal template letter cost of running a parking operation). The Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste robo-claims at all, and that the filing of yet another fact-unchecked parking claim by SCS Law is purely a daily administrative function.
c. 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.
12. 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. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts claimed due to the reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.
Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Redx

if GLADSTONES were involved in this along with the claimant UK CPM , then what has the reference to SCS LAW got to do with it ? (copy and paste error without proof reading ?)

KeithP

Redx wrote: »

if GLADSTONES were involved in this along with the claimant UK CPM , then what has the reference to SCS LAW got to do with it ? (copy and paste error without proof reading ?)

...and even in a sentence that mentions 'cut & paste'.

JonSnow012

Apologies I completely missed that. Other than this point does everything else seem sufficient or am I far from a finished product?

JonSnow012

Hi all, is anyone able to please check through my defence before I submit it? Thanks in advance.

In The County Court
Claim No: XXXXXXX
Between
UK Car Park Management Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts of the matter are that the vehicle of registration number xxxxx, of which the Defendant was the registered keeper but, not the driver of on the material dates where the driver was liable for unauthorised parking.
3. The Defendant denies the charge for Unauthorised parking on the basis that the signs at the location followed the Claimant's trade association Code of Practice. Signs were not displayed clearly and prominently around the site at the entrance or exits; therefore, the driver had no knowledge it was entering on to private land or parking in an unauthorised bay.
4. 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 who would be able to read them. Not to mention the signs are also located at a distance, insufficient in number and placed high creating an illegible condition to read the terms and conditions required to enter a contract. The doctrine of contra proferentem applies and the interpretation that most favours a consumer must prevail; that being that the driver(s) did not see or accept the sum the Claimant says they did.
a. The IPC guidelines state that signage at the entrance to the site should ‘Make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land’. There is no signage clearly displaying the parking conditions at the entrance of the site and no clear signs stating the driver is entering onto private land.
5. It is denied that the Claimant has the authority to bring this claim as the signage is a “forbidding offer”, which isn’t an offer at all, which means there can be no contract.
6. The Defendant has asked the Claimants solicitor for a site map and photographs of the signs, but nothing was provided
7. The Defendant has asked the Claimant's solicitor for the documentary evidence required by its client's Code of Practice Para B (1.1) that demonstrates sufficient right to occupy the land in question. The request has been ignored
8. UK Car Parking Management Ltd lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim
9. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
10. In the Defendant's case, there was no prominent contract for the defendant to read and accept. The Defendant avers that the factually-different Beavis decision confirms the assertion that this charge is unconscionable, given the facts of this case. To quote from the Supreme Court:
a. Para 108: ''But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85''.
b. Para 199: ''What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 [...] is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests. Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so.''
c. Para 205: ''The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.''
11. The Claimant has inexplicably added £60 in 'costs' bolted onto both £100 PCNs, despite using a solicitor to file the claim, who must understand the CPR 27.14 does not permit such 'admin' charges to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.
a. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred and that it formed a prominent, legible part of any terms on signage, and that it was, in fact, expended. The Claimant harassed the Defendant with debt collector demands but these are sent on a no-win-no-fee basis by the likes of Debt Recovery Plus who advertise they only charge when they collect monies. To add £60 per PCN, plus alleged 'legal costs' on top is a wholly disingenuous attempt at double recovery, and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.
b. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant had not incurred any damages, nor admin, nor legal costs that are not already encompassed within the inflated “parking charge” (that the Supreme Court held in Beavis, was mostly profit and more than covers the very minimal template letter cost of running a parking operation).
c. In ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] it was commented that the addition of debt collector charges would turn the parking charge into an excessive penalty, as seen in this instance
12. 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. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts claimed due to the reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.
Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

2. The facts of the matter are that the vehicle of registration number xxxxx, of which the Defendant was the registered keeper but, not the driver of on the material dates where the driver was liable for unauthorised parking.

Nononono!

You do not say in defence that the driver was LIABLE for anything.

And at the start of the defence you said you were not the driver, but here it implies you were:

9. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

10. In the Defendant's case, there was no prominent contract for the defendant to read and accept.

...don't you mean 'the driver'? Are you being truthful that the D wasn't driving?