County court letter for not clearly displayed ticket

Nukacola

Hi everyone

I've read the newbies thread and it says to start a new thread if I receive this letter. Hope I've got that right? Really sorry if not!

The driver purchased a ticket on that day (which they still have), however the ticket must have blown over when the door was shut.

The driver has ignored all letters so far, but the the newbies thread says a letter needs to be sent now (but not the enclosed claim form).

Any help or guidance would be greatly appreciated, the (amazing and informative) information is a little overwhelming!

I'm not able to post a link as I'm a new user but if you add the https:// before this ibb.co/k4SKmyM it should come up

Redx

its a SIP parking manchester court claim form from the CCBC in Northampton , issue date 24 april 2019

remove the link above , redact the password on the bottom right hand side and redact the pcn ref in the POC on the left as well

then repost the link , after ensuring no other personal details are visible

email a SAR to the DPO at SIP asap with a copy of the V5C and get all their data and docs on you

do the AOS online following the guide in the NEWBIES thread post #2

then start drafting your defence , by looking at the BARGEPOLE defences and also any other SIP cases that we have on here

then post the draft below for critique

KeithP

https://ibb.co/k4SKmyM


With a Claim Issue Date of 24th April, you have until Monday 13th May to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 27th May 2019 to file your Defence.

That's nearly three weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect 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.

The_Deep

They are obviously trying to scam you so complain to your MP.

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.

Coupon-mad

Show us your defence draft after reading loads of exact same threads. There are shedloads of defence threads here for you to read & learn from.

The only difference here is this is SIP filing the claim themselves, it seems, not Gladstones.

Nukacola

Hi everyone

Thanks so much for your replies, I'm really grateful as I have previously been scared into paying fines like these.

I've done the SAR and AOS. I've drafted a defence based on the barge pole defence. I've only removed and amended a few bits as it seemed to fit quite well.

Would it be beneficial to send a copy of the purchased ticket along with the defence? Would it be fair to add something about not being able to control the wind (the window may have been open a touch causing the ticket to flip over). I assume I'll be looking at amending the draft when the SAR comes back based on the info they hold?

Any feedback will be greatly appreciated, thank you.


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

SIP CAR PARKS (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 are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to SIP car parks at Tariff Street, Manchester and had a valid permit to be parked in that bay.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. 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.

4. The claim is brought for breach of contract. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary 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 £100 is for breach of contract. The claim includes an additional £60 in damages, also for breach of contract, 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

Would it be beneficial to send a copy of the purchased ticket along with the defence?

Nope. Not how it works, that comes later:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75787882#Comment_75787882

The template defence has a typo in it:

prorpietary

Would it be fair to add something about not being able to control the wind (the window may have been open a touch causing the ticket to flip over).

Yes, and you can probably find a defence with that in it by searching:

defence reasonable endeavours Jolley v Carmel true


or

defence force majeure

Nukacola

Hello! I've added a few points to the defence around force majeure, the meaning of 'not clearly displayed' and failure to provide adhesive or non flimsy tickets.

What do you think?

Thanks again

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

SIP CAR PARKS (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 are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to SIP car parks at Tariff Street, Manchester and had a valid permit to be parked in that bay.

3 The driver checked the ticket after placing it on the dashboard, and it was clearly displayed. The ticket has flipped or blown over after the driver left the vehicle, perhaps by strong winds through air vents. This ‘force majeure’ was caused by severe weather outside the fault of the driver and not something which should be a matter for either party to be bound by, nor for either party to benefit from, in terms of any 'charge' or penalty.

4 The term, ‘not clearly displayed' ’ is not transparent per Section 68 of the CRA 2015. Where contract terms have different meanings Section 69 of the CRA 2015 provides a statutory form of the contra proferentem rule, such that the consumer must be given the benefit of the doubt. A valid ticket was displayed in the front windscreen of the Defendant’s vehicle. If the Claimant wanted to impose a term to continuously display permits, then they should have drafted clear terms to that effect. Fluttering ticket cases have been ruled by PATAS adjudicators in Council PCN adjudications as requiring specific terms to 'continuously display' or there is no contravention. The term is fundamental to the contract, and the Defendant invites the Court to find that it is not transparent and therefore unfair. If a fundamental term to the contract is deemed to be unfair, then the contract will cease to bind the parties. The Defence invites the Court to take these issues into account in determining the fairness of the term.

4 It would be reasonable to expect a parking firm, as a purported service provider in a customer car park open to the general public, to provide non-flimsy tickets and a method of attachment such as a sticky or double sided ticket - where they know this is a repeated issue. I include the views of Council Adjudicators regarding the well-known issue of 'flimsy fluttering tickets' in my defence, because the Supreme Court (and the Court of Appeal Judges) in Beavis were happy to draw similarities with Council PCNs:

‘In DB05057D the adjudicator said: “…having seen the original ticket I note that it is made of rather thin paper which is likely to be dislodged when a car door is shut. It may be that the Council would argue that it is the driver's responsibility to ensure that the ticket is on display when the vehicle is left, but on the other hand if it chooses to issue pay and display tickets made of such thin paper it must expect that now and again this type of situation will arise.”
In HV05040D the adjudicator accepted the appellant’s evidence that she had displayed the ticket on the dash and checked after closing the door that it was still there. He said: “I am not aware of any signs in the car park suggesting the use of adhesives by motorists when parking their cars."’

5 The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. 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 The claim is brought for breach of contract. 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 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.

8 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.

9 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.

10 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 £100 is for breach of contract. The claim includes an additional £60 in damages, also for breach of contract, which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

11 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

Le_Kirk

This ‘force majeure’ was caused by severe weather outside the fault of the driver and not something

Better as: -

This ‘force majeure’ was caused by severe weather outside the [STRIKE]fault[/STRIKE] control of the driver and not something

[STRIKE]I[/STRIKE] the defendant includes the views

Defences are written in the third person, check for any other errors like this. It's fine where you have quoted other people speaking or writing. Just check that you are not including EVIDENCE that should be submitted along with the Witness Statement later in the process.

Coupon-mad

Nice defence. Very good now that it suits your case better.

I'd add a bit here to take another swipe at the £60 fake added 'debt costs' and to bring in the differences between your case & Beavis:

10. 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 £100 is for breach of contract. The claim includes an additional £60 in damages, also for breach of contract, which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. Added costs/damages were also deemed unrecoverable in the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which allowed only the parking charge itself (£85) due to compelling facts about clear signs, a legitimate commercial interest and deterrent value in encouraging turnover of spaces. None of this applies to this claim, which is wholly meritless due to the Claimant's failure to similarly disengage the penalty rule.

In fact, where you call that case the shorthand 'Beavis' in #4, change it to the full citation as above, then change it at #10 to the shorthand 'Beavis' if that makes sense (only needs quoting in full the first time it is mentioned).

Nukacola

Hi again. I've made the amendments you both suggested. Thank you again.


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

SIP CAR PARKS (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 are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to SIP car parks at Tariff Street, Manchester and had a valid permit to be parked in that bay.

3 The driver checked the ticket after placing it on the dashboard, and it was clearly displayed. The ticket has flipped or blown over after the driver left the vehicle, perhaps by strong winds through air vents. This ‘force majeure’ was caused by severe weather outside the control of the driver and not something which should be a matter for either party to be bound by, nor for either party to benefit from, in terms of any 'charge' or penalty.

4 The term, ‘not clearly displayed' ’ is not transparent per Section 68 of the CRA 2015. Where contract terms have different meanings Section 69 of the CRA 2015 provides a statutory form of the contra proferentem rule, such that the consumer must be given the benefit of the doubt. A valid ticket was displayed in the front windscreen of the Defendant’s vehicle. If the Claimant wanted to impose a term to continuously display permits, then they should have drafted clear terms to that effect. Fluttering ticket cases have been ruled by PATAS adjudicators in Council PCN adjudications as requiring specific terms to 'continuously display' or there is no contravention. The term is fundamental to the contract, and the Defendant invites the Court to find that it is not transparent and therefore unfair. If a fundamental term to the contract is deemed to be unfair, then the contract will cease to bind the parties. The Defence invites the Court to take these issues into account in determining the fairness of the term.

4 It would be reasonable to expect a parking firm, as a purported service provider in a customer car park open to the general public, to provide non-flimsy tickets and a method of attachment such as a sticky or double sided ticket - where they know this is a repeated issue. The defendant includes the views of Council Adjudicators regarding the well-known issue of 'flimsy fluttering tickets' in this defence, because the Supreme Court (and the Court of Appeal Judges) in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 were happy to draw similarities with Council PCNs:

‘In DB05057D the adjudicator said: “…having seen the original ticket I note that it is made of rather thin paper which is likely to be dislodged when a car door is shut. It may be that the Council would argue that it is the driver's responsibility to ensure that the ticket is on display when the vehicle is left, but on the other hand if it chooses to issue pay and display tickets made of such thin paper it must expect that now and again this type of situation will arise.”
In HV05040D the adjudicator accepted the appellant’s evidence that she had displayed the ticket on the dash and checked after closing the door that it was still there. He said: “I am not aware of any signs in the car park suggesting the use of adhesives by motorists when parking their cars."’

5 The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. 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 The claim is brought for breach of contract. 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 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.

8 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.

9 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.

10 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 £100 is for breach of contract. The claim includes an additional £60 in damages, also for breach of contract, which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. Added costs/damages were also deemed unrecoverable in the Supreme Court case of Beavis, which allowed only the parking charge itself (£85) due to compelling facts about clear signs, a legitimate commercial interest and deterrent value in encouraging turnover of spaces. None of this applies to this claim, which is wholly meritless due to the Claimant's failure to similarly disengage the penalty rule.

11 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