County Court Defence Help Needed Please!

PeanutDad

Hi,

As the registered keeper of a car I have received County Court claim for an unpaid PCN from ParkingEye. All previous communication has been ignored and binned!

I have done AoS. The issue date of the claim was 10 April 2019.

The parking is pay and display but the thing is that the car park is very dark and without any of the lights working (I have photos to prove). The signs are not visible from all parking bays. The car was parked by the driver at night time for perhaps an hour.

Now I have read through the Newbies post and have been going through various threads here and pepipoo but I am not sure how to write my defence in terms of what are the relevant things to state so that PEs claim is rejected by the court.

Your help would be much appreciated!

Thanks

KeithP

PeanutDad wrote: »

As the registered keeper of a car I have received County Court claim for an unpaid PCN from ParkingEye.

I have done AoS. The issue date of the claim was 10 April 2019.

With a Claim Issue Date of 10th April, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 13th May 2019 to file your Defence.

That's just over a week away. Loads of time to produce a Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Have you not seen the example Defences linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread?

Coupon-mad

Now I have read through the Newbies post and have been going through various threads here and pepipoo but I am not sure how to write my defence in terms of what are the relevant things to state so that PEs claim is rejected by the court.

Like everyone else you will just need to read the example defences & show us your draft. It's obvious what's relevant! You will see similar defences and standard things said in all of them, plus you have the point about unlit signs and hidden machines simply not signposted at all in pitch black conditions. Therefore no contract existed.

No evidence goes yet but you will know this from the 'what happens when' post.

PeanutDad

Thanks for your replies KeithP and Coupon-mad.

Here is my first draft. Would appreciate your thoughts:


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

ParkingEye Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (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, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in the car park at 6 Beaconsfield Road, Southall at night time. The car park in question has no functioning lights nor are any of the claimants signage lit thus rendering them unreadable at night.

3. 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.

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

5. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant !!!8220;was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)!!!8221;. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

6. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.





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

8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

9. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

Remove these, they are old forum posting glitches, not a secret code!

!!!8221

And I would add to this:

3. 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. Further, the Claimant appears to be suggesting this a 'pay and display ticket' ('PDT') car park and yet it is averred that any PDT machine(s) were unlit/in a corner and not signposted in a prominent way for visitors to see at night. The Claimant has breached the British Parking Association Code of Practice in all respects relating to mandatory signage when operating a parking regime during the hours of darkness and in all facts the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 case is fully distinguished.

The_Deep

IMO, PE signs leave much to be desired. I doubt that many judges would agree that they are capable of forming a contract, read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading

and enlist the support of your MP as they are obviously trying to scam you.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. 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.

PeanutDad

Thank you Coupon-mad! Have removed the funny code and have added to 3 what you suggested. Below is the revised version.

@ The Deep - have read the thread you suggested. In my case the car park had to lighting and nor were the signs lit making it near impossible to notice them let alone being able to read what they say!

---

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

ParkingEye Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (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, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in the car park at 6 Beaconsfield Road, Southall. The car park in question has no functioning lights nor are any of the claimants signage lit thus rendering them unreadable at night.

3. 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. Further, the Claimant appears to be suggesting this a 'pay and display ticket' ('PDT') car park and yet it is averred that any PDT machine(s) were unlit/in a corner and not signposted in a prominent way for visitors to see at night. The Claimant has breached the British Parking Association Code of Practice in all respects relating to mandatory signage when operating a parking regime during the hours of darkness and in all facts the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 case is fully distinguished.

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

5. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant; was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s);. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

6. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

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

8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £50, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

9. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

Looks good - now do as directed by post #2 and stick around throughout!

PeanutDad

Thanks. Will do

Socrates_1

The parking is pay and display but the thing is that the car park is very dark and without any of the lights working (I have photos to prove). The signs are not visible from all parking bays. The car was parked by the driver at night time for perhaps an hour.

When you take your car out and turn off the highway, where do you think you are when you leave it parked? A reasonable person would assume they were on private property and make checks to see the nature of the parking space and if there were restrictions.

This false blindness is wearing thin in some courts as there is a high expectation of drivers in terms of their ability to read road signs. You are asking a judge to agree the need to be aware of the surroundings disappears when leaving the highway - or you expect to be forgiven when dumping your car on someone else's land.

You may be lucky with a forgiving judge but don't expect it.

Umkomaas

Could you remind us what the BPA Code of Practice requires of operators when enforcing during the hours of darkness?

This false blindness is wearing thin in some courts as there is a high expectation of drivers in terms of their ability to read road signs.

It would be really interesting to read some court reports/transcripts to confirm this. Can you point us to any please?