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).
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 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!
UK Car Park Management Court Claim!!
Options
Kazaa
Posts: 98 Forumite
Hello guys,
Ok so i have prepared a defence by looking at other cases, however i could not find a case for "forbidden parking"
1. I am the Defendant, ???? , DOB xx/xx/xxxx, and reside at ?????? and it is admitted that I was the driver of the vehicle on the day of this event.
2. Save as specifically admitted in this defence the Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence.
Preliminary matters:
3. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer).
4. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract', so I have had to cover all eventualities and this has denied me a fair chance to defend this in an informed way. I have asked questions in the form of a Part 18 request but have not received any response.
5. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and 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. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim.
In further support of there being a want of cause of action:
6. The PCN was issued on a poorly signed private road where I had pulled over due to car heating issues and not parked. I was completely unaware that the site was 'private land' or being enforced by any restrictive terms, due to insufficient signage. I refer to the IPC Code of Practice (CoP) Part E, highlighting that adequate and clear entrance signs are required.
7. There were no entrance signs at all to show that drivers were entering an area of 'parking enforcement' or 'private land'. The road was not marked as a no-stopping zone nor transparently signed as a permit-holders or 'managed' site, as their CoP requires. The only no parking sign was attached to a pole and was in front of the church and cannot be seen if you are in your car.
8. Further and in the alternative, 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 reading them. They merely states “No Parking on Access Roads”, giving no definition of the term 'Access Roads', nor indicating where the Access Roads are located. There was nothing to suggest that one sign could relate to parking on the roadway where the kerb was unmarked. There was no clearway sign nor red lines/hatched lines to communicate 'no stopping'.
9. The Supreme Court Judges in the Beavis case held that a CoP is effectively 'regulation' for the private parking industry, full compliance with which is both expected and binding upon any parking operator.
10. I was given no fair chance to read any terms at all, so the elements of a contract and agreement on any (unknown) charge are absent. Where terms on a parking sign are not seen/known, then there can be no contract. I rely upon the case of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest; CA 5 APR 2000, a case won by the consumer on appeal where the Judges also found that clear entrance signs are expected.
11. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, 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. Any ‘charge’ or terms on signage on the day was not seen but even if the court believes signs were displayed, the terms were in such small print as to be illegible, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
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. Further, there is no ‘legitimate interest’ served by immediate ticketing of a car on arrival, with no attempt to mitigate loss or draw terms to the attention of drivers, or allow any period of grace to obtain any permit or even read the signs.
13. The IPC code of conduct states that a grace period must be allowed in order that a driver might spot signage, go up to it, read it and then decide whether to accept the terms or not. A reasonable grace period in any car park would be from 5-15 minutes from the period of stopping. This grace period was not observed and therefore the operator is in breach of the industry code of practice. Additionally no contract can be in place by conduct until a reasonable period elapses.
14. Even if the court is minded to accept that a sign was visible, the wording on the sign was prohibitive. Unlike in the Beavis case, the Claimant offered no licence to park if ‘unauthorised’. A purported licence to stop without a permit, in exchange for payment of a ‘charge’ on the one hand, cannot be offered when that same conduct is, on the other hand, expressly prohibited in the signage wording. This does not create any possible contract.
15. Should the claim be for breach of contract, then the defendant denies there is or was any contract implied or otherwise. As in the case of PCM vs Bull, the signs at the location are forbidding and serve as a notice of absolute prohibition against parking at any time and cannot constitute a contract.
16. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and pursue payment by means of litigation.
17. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.
18. As was confirmed in the Beavis case, ParkingEye could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).
19. Even if all the conditions had been met to disengage the penalty, the Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis was only prepared to accept a charge (£85) that was sufficient to act as a disincentive and that was worth collecting. The Supreme Court had previously stated that £135 would be unacceptable ( ParkingEye v Somerfield).
In summary this case differs to 'the Beavis case' as:
i) The Private Parking Charge has not followed an "effectively binding" code of practice.
ii) The Claimant has no commercial justification
iii) The Claimant did not follow the IPC or BPA Code of Practice
iv) The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
v) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.
20. 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.
21. The facts and information in this defence are true and the Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.
Please let me know in this case if point 15 is valid? Also if someone can find an example of where a defence has been used before specifically for No Parking on Access Roads or a similar case.
Any help will be appreciated.
Thanks
Ok so i have prepared a defence by looking at other cases, however i could not find a case for "forbidden parking"
1. I am the Defendant, ???? , DOB xx/xx/xxxx, and reside at ?????? and it is admitted that I was the driver of the vehicle on the day of this event.
2. Save as specifically admitted in this defence the Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence.
Preliminary matters:
3. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer).
4. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract', so I have had to cover all eventualities and this has denied me a fair chance to defend this in an informed way. I have asked questions in the form of a Part 18 request but have not received any response.
5. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and 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. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim.
In further support of there being a want of cause of action:
6. The PCN was issued on a poorly signed private road where I had pulled over due to car heating issues and not parked. I was completely unaware that the site was 'private land' or being enforced by any restrictive terms, due to insufficient signage. I refer to the IPC Code of Practice (CoP) Part E, highlighting that adequate and clear entrance signs are required.
7. There were no entrance signs at all to show that drivers were entering an area of 'parking enforcement' or 'private land'. The road was not marked as a no-stopping zone nor transparently signed as a permit-holders or 'managed' site, as their CoP requires. The only no parking sign was attached to a pole and was in front of the church and cannot be seen if you are in your car.
8. Further and in the alternative, 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 reading them. They merely states “No Parking on Access Roads”, giving no definition of the term 'Access Roads', nor indicating where the Access Roads are located. There was nothing to suggest that one sign could relate to parking on the roadway where the kerb was unmarked. There was no clearway sign nor red lines/hatched lines to communicate 'no stopping'.
9. The Supreme Court Judges in the Beavis case held that a CoP is effectively 'regulation' for the private parking industry, full compliance with which is both expected and binding upon any parking operator.
10. I was given no fair chance to read any terms at all, so the elements of a contract and agreement on any (unknown) charge are absent. Where terms on a parking sign are not seen/known, then there can be no contract. I rely upon the case of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest; CA 5 APR 2000, a case won by the consumer on appeal where the Judges also found that clear entrance signs are expected.
11. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, 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. Any ‘charge’ or terms on signage on the day was not seen but even if the court believes signs were displayed, the terms were in such small print as to be illegible, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
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. Further, there is no ‘legitimate interest’ served by immediate ticketing of a car on arrival, with no attempt to mitigate loss or draw terms to the attention of drivers, or allow any period of grace to obtain any permit or even read the signs.
13. The IPC code of conduct states that a grace period must be allowed in order that a driver might spot signage, go up to it, read it and then decide whether to accept the terms or not. A reasonable grace period in any car park would be from 5-15 minutes from the period of stopping. This grace period was not observed and therefore the operator is in breach of the industry code of practice. Additionally no contract can be in place by conduct until a reasonable period elapses.
14. Even if the court is minded to accept that a sign was visible, the wording on the sign was prohibitive. Unlike in the Beavis case, the Claimant offered no licence to park if ‘unauthorised’. A purported licence to stop without a permit, in exchange for payment of a ‘charge’ on the one hand, cannot be offered when that same conduct is, on the other hand, expressly prohibited in the signage wording. This does not create any possible contract.
15. Should the claim be for breach of contract, then the defendant denies there is or was any contract implied or otherwise. As in the case of PCM vs Bull, the signs at the location are forbidding and serve as a notice of absolute prohibition against parking at any time and cannot constitute a contract.
16. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and pursue payment by means of litigation.
17. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.
18. As was confirmed in the Beavis case, ParkingEye could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).
19. Even if all the conditions had been met to disengage the penalty, the Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis was only prepared to accept a charge (£85) that was sufficient to act as a disincentive and that was worth collecting. The Supreme Court had previously stated that £135 would be unacceptable ( ParkingEye v Somerfield).
In summary this case differs to 'the Beavis case' as:
i) The Private Parking Charge has not followed an "effectively binding" code of practice.
ii) The Claimant has no commercial justification
iii) The Claimant did not follow the IPC or BPA Code of Practice
iv) The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
v) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.
20. 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.
21. The facts and information in this defence are true and the Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.
Please let me know in this case if point 15 is valid? Also if someone can find an example of where a defence has been used before specifically for No Parking on Access Roads or a similar case.
Any help will be appreciated.
Thanks
0
Comments
-
Hi and welcome.
What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?
Did it come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?0 -
Search this forum for:however i could not find a case for "forbidden parking"
forbidding Bull defence true
and change the default to 'SHOW RESULTS AS POSTS' (never 'as threads').PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Hello it came from Northampton Business Centre and I have till the 27th to submit. I will try to search for what you said,
Thanks0 -
OK, then without the Issue Date I'll just say...
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 "defence received". 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.
-
Complain to your MP. 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.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Ok, so I have emailed a copy of my defence to the email suggested by Keith today, I will chase them up tomorrow.
Next steps for me is to complain to the MP and wait for the witness statement and a court date if it arrives. Will keep you updated.
Thanks guys0 -
Hello everyone,
So I have filed my defence 2 weeks ago and received a letter from Gladstones stating the following :-
'We act for the Claimant and have notified the Court of our clients intention to proceed with the claim
Please find enclosed a copy of our Client's completed Directions Questionnaire, which will be filed with the court upon their request. You will note we intend to request a special direction that the case be dealt with on papers and without the need for an oral hearing
This request is sought simply because the matter is in our Client's opinion relatively straightforward and the costs incurred by both parties for attending an oral hearing would be disproportionate. We trust you agree.
You will note out Client has elected not to mediate. Its decision is not meant to be in any way obstructive and is based purely on experience, as mediation has rarely proven beneficial in these types of cases. Notwithstanding this, our Client would be happy to listen to any genuine payment proposals that you wish to put forward.
Yours Sincerely,
Gladstones Solicitors Limited'
They have then included the Directions Questionnaire (Small Claims Track) form which states that;
- They do not agree to having this case referred to the Small Claims Mediation Service
- They agree that the small claims track is the appropriate track for this case
- They do not want the court's permission to use the written evidence of an expert
- They have one witness who will give evidence on their behalf
- Request for special direction: The matter will be considered in paperwork without a hearing. The parties attendance is not required and the Judge will determine the matter based upon the documents and evidence supplied and any written representations received.
Does anyone have any recommendations on the next steps? Or do I ignore this letter and wait a response from the court?
Thanks0 -
Forum search on keywords ‘Gladstones relatively straightforward ’ and follow the guidance dozens of others have been given on this query that crops up continually. We can’t keep typing it all out!
HOW TO USE THE FORUM SEARCH FUNCTION:
Hit your 'Back' button to get back to the forum thread list. On the bar just above the threads you'll see the 'Search' function. Click on the 'Advanced Search' button and on the following page place your keyword(s) in the 'Search By Keyword(s)' and make sure the 'Show Results As' button (at the foot of the window) is changed from 'Threads' to 'Posts'.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 -
Ah yes, thank you, so simply I will wait for the questionnaire from CBBC before I take action :-)0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards