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!
Charged for entering car park twice in one day
Options
ianham49
Posts: 12 Forumite
Hi Guys
Here is the defence i am thinking of posting. I entered the car park twice to drop my girlfriend off and they have taken it that i was parked from the entering exit times ignoring the enter and exit inbetween. Any advice will be much appreciated.
The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
This is my deffence and all liability is denied on the following basis:
1) The amount is neither a genuine tariff/fee for parking, nor is it based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to your company or the landowner.
2) At no time was the defendants vehicle parked at the said address. The claimant only provides pictures of the vehicle entering and leaving the car park at said times. This is true but at no time was the vehicle parked. The vehicle was used for the passenger to alight and then again to collect the passenger from said location.
3)Your client originally contracted you in order to disallow and deter - not allow and profit from - unauthorised parking. The defndant contend this charge is merely a penalty which is not recoverable in contract law (as found by Mr Recorder Gibson QC in the case of Civil Enforcement v McCafferty 3YK50188 (AP476) 21/2/2014 Appeal). Should the claimant rely upon ParkingEye v Beavis & Wardley at independent appeal stage, the defendant of course points out that it was a flawed decision at small claim level so is not binding, and Mr Beavis is continuing his defence to the Court of Appeal. There is clearly no commercial justification for this punitive charge and no case law to support it.
4)The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
5)The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
6)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 £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days.
7) The claimant is not the lawful occupier of the land. The Defendant has reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.
a. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the
landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
b. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a
vehicle parking at the location in question
c. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party
agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge
d. The Particulars of Claim are deficient in establishing whether the claim is brought in trespass. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis vs ParkingEye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.
8)The Defendant invites the court to strike out or dismiss the claim under Rule 3.4(2)(a) of PRACTICE DIRECTION 3A as having not set out a concise statement of the nature of the claim or disclosed reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim (Part 16.4(1)(a) and PRACTICE DIRECTION 16 paragraphs 3.1-3.8). In C3GF84Y (Mason, Plymouth County Court), the judge struck out the claim brought by KBT Cornwall Ltd as Gladstones Solicitors had not submitted proper Particulars of Claim, and similar reasons were cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''. The Practice Direction also sets out the following example which is analogous to this claim: ‘those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’.’
9)The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims and the solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
10)The Defendant believes the terms for such conduct is ‘robo claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to their significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.
11)The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the Courts should be seen to support.
12)The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.
13)The Defendant invites the court to dismiss this claim out as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under Practice Direction 16, set out by the Ministry of Justice and also Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under 16.4 and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.
I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.
Here is the defence i am thinking of posting. I entered the car park twice to drop my girlfriend off and they have taken it that i was parked from the entering exit times ignoring the enter and exit inbetween. Any advice will be much appreciated.
The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
This is my deffence and all liability is denied on the following basis:
1) The amount is neither a genuine tariff/fee for parking, nor is it based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to your company or the landowner.
2) At no time was the defendants vehicle parked at the said address. The claimant only provides pictures of the vehicle entering and leaving the car park at said times. This is true but at no time was the vehicle parked. The vehicle was used for the passenger to alight and then again to collect the passenger from said location.
3)Your client originally contracted you in order to disallow and deter - not allow and profit from - unauthorised parking. The defndant contend this charge is merely a penalty which is not recoverable in contract law (as found by Mr Recorder Gibson QC in the case of Civil Enforcement v McCafferty 3YK50188 (AP476) 21/2/2014 Appeal). Should the claimant rely upon ParkingEye v Beavis & Wardley at independent appeal stage, the defendant of course points out that it was a flawed decision at small claim level so is not binding, and Mr Beavis is continuing his defence to the Court of Appeal. There is clearly no commercial justification for this punitive charge and no case law to support it.
4)The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
5)The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
6)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 £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days.
7) The claimant is not the lawful occupier of the land. The Defendant has reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.
a. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the
landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
b. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a
vehicle parking at the location in question
c. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party
agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge
d. The Particulars of Claim are deficient in establishing whether the claim is brought in trespass. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis vs ParkingEye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.
8)The Defendant invites the court to strike out or dismiss the claim under Rule 3.4(2)(a) of PRACTICE DIRECTION 3A as having not set out a concise statement of the nature of the claim or disclosed reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim (Part 16.4(1)(a) and PRACTICE DIRECTION 16 paragraphs 3.1-3.8). In C3GF84Y (Mason, Plymouth County Court), the judge struck out the claim brought by KBT Cornwall Ltd as Gladstones Solicitors had not submitted proper Particulars of Claim, and similar reasons were cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''. The Practice Direction also sets out the following example which is analogous to this claim: ‘those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’.’
9)The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims and the solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
10)The Defendant believes the terms for such conduct is ‘robo claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to their significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.
11)The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the Courts should be seen to support.
12)The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.
13)The Defendant invites the court to dismiss this claim out as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under Practice Direction 16, set out by the Ministry of Justice and also Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under 16.4 and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.
I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.
0
Comments
-
You say: "Here is my Defence..." and "this is my appeal...".
Which is it?
Couldn't read much more of that scrunched up text.
Have you received a County Court Claim Form?
Did it come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?
What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?0 -
Here is the defence i am thinking of posting. I entered the car park twice to drop my girlfriend off and they have taken it that i was parked from the entering exit times ignoring the enter and exit inbetween. Any advice will be much appreciated.
Can you put some paragraph gaps in you post above, please? It's hard to read.
Which parking firm?
I'd be considering a counter claim if I were you, for misuse of DVLA data. A double dip case like yours is set up for a counter claim if you are up for it (costs you a £25 fee, unless you are exempt from court fees in which case it's free!).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 -
Hi guys,
Sorry for the scrunched up text must be something in my formatting. Yes it is from the Northhampton Business Centre claims court.
The parking firm is Britannia Parking Group.
Like I say any help appreciated.
Thanks
Ian0 -
Have put some gaps hopefully this will help
0 -
Hi yes I have had a claims form.
I have acknowledged it online and now need to present a defence.
thanks0 -
What is the issue date on the claim form ?
Keith P has asked twice - there is a reason for asking.0 -
the issue date is 27 feb, I know its cutting it fine but I have till sunday to register defence. Hopefully this will help somehow.
the date of notice 28/11/160 -
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
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards