We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
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).
The MSE Forum Team would like to wish you all a Merry Christmas. However, we know this time of year can be difficult for some. If you're struggling during the festive period, here's a list of organisations that might be able to help
📨 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!
Has MSE helped you to save or reclaim money this year? Share your 2025 MoneySaving success stories!
Court Action for UK CPM Parking Ticket
Penguin_123
Posts: 22 Forumite
Hi All
Please can you help with my defence. I have been reading the threads for a few weeks and have attempted to pull together my defence, however I am unsure if the contents are correct for my circumstances. I will try to get down the facts so you can assist.
Any help would be massively appreciated as well as all the information already obtained from this site. Thanks
- All previous letters to the 'Letter Before Claim' have been disposed of so I am unable to look at these to confirm if POFA 2012 has been complied with. SAR request sent 27/04, awaiting info. Pictures have been previously sent with correspondence, although unsure what they were and whether they would have a picture of the driver as no longer have these.
- Date on claim form 11/04/19 (So have until 15/04 to file defence). I hope I have not left it too late to receive some feedback.
- I was not driving and the vehicle was parked fully on the pavement - 2 people insured. Both have parked on the car park in the past and hadn't noticed the signs, although I am not sure there will be an argument as having looked at the car park on google maps there are signed dotted around. Signs say 'no parking outside a marked bay' amount other things and no fee was payable as this was a hotel car park in which I was a member of the gym.
- Particulars of claim:
The driver of the vehicle registration XXX (the 'Vehicle') parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the 'Contract') at XXX on XXX thus incurring the parking charge (the 'PCN'). The driver of the vehicle agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days of issue yet failed to do so. The claimant claims the unpaid PCN from the Defendant as the driver/keeper of the Vehicle. Despite demands being made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £100 for the PCN, £60.00 contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £XX pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% per annum, continuing at £0.04 per day.
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx
BETWEEN:
UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)
-and-
xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
Statement of Defence
I am XXXXX, defendant in this matter. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.
The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim.
(1) The Claimant did not identify the driver
(2) The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.
(3) The vehicle was insured for two people at the time of the alleged incident.
(4) The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained. The Defendant does not know who the driver was. The two insured persons cannot remember who used the car on the date in question. The Defendant has no means of finding out who the driver was, and in any event is not obliged to do so by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 or any other legislation, or pursuant to any contractual obligation. It is unreasonable of the claimant to assume that it can be recalled who was the driver at the time.
(5) Due to the Claimant’s history of lack of compliance with regulations, the Claimant must prove that it has fully complied with the strict requirements sent out in POFA 2012 Schedule 4. As the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle, these regulations must be complied with in order to hold the keeper liable.
(6) 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, which do not enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. 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.
On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.’
On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were efficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.
(7) 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. The POFA 2012 Schedule 4 states that before seeking keeper liability, the Claimant must demonstrate that there was a “relevant contract”. The Claimant is put to strict proof that a “relevant contract” existed to pay £100 and that there was (as defined in 2(3) of the statute) 'adequate notice' of that sum and legible terms.
(8) 1. 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. The claim includes an additional £60, which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
2. No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs.
3. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
4. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
5. Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
6. The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal fees" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.
(9) The defendant wrote to the claimant on xxxxx asking for:
This shall include but not limited to the following items:
- All photos taken
- Photos of any signage the claim form refers to
- The contract the claim form refers to
- All letters/emails sent and received
- All data held and all evidence you will rely on including a full copy of the Parking Charge Notice and Notice to Keeper
The claimant has not yet provided all of this information.
(10) Withholding any relevant photos of the car, signage terms and contract etc, despite being asked for by the Defendant, is against the SRA code as well as contrary to the ‘overiding objective’ in the pre action protocol. As Gladstones are a firm of solicitors whose Directors also run the IPC Trade Body and deal with private parking issues every single day of the week there can be no excuse for these omissions.
(11) UK Car Park Management are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the 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.
1. 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.
2. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
3. 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
(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. 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.
Please can you help with my defence. I have been reading the threads for a few weeks and have attempted to pull together my defence, however I am unsure if the contents are correct for my circumstances. I will try to get down the facts so you can assist.
Any help would be massively appreciated as well as all the information already obtained from this site. Thanks
- All previous letters to the 'Letter Before Claim' have been disposed of so I am unable to look at these to confirm if POFA 2012 has been complied with. SAR request sent 27/04, awaiting info. Pictures have been previously sent with correspondence, although unsure what they were and whether they would have a picture of the driver as no longer have these.
- Date on claim form 11/04/19 (So have until 15/04 to file defence). I hope I have not left it too late to receive some feedback.
- I was not driving and the vehicle was parked fully on the pavement - 2 people insured. Both have parked on the car park in the past and hadn't noticed the signs, although I am not sure there will be an argument as having looked at the car park on google maps there are signed dotted around. Signs say 'no parking outside a marked bay' amount other things and no fee was payable as this was a hotel car park in which I was a member of the gym.
- Particulars of claim:
The driver of the vehicle registration XXX (the 'Vehicle') parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the 'Contract') at XXX on XXX thus incurring the parking charge (the 'PCN'). The driver of the vehicle agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days of issue yet failed to do so. The claimant claims the unpaid PCN from the Defendant as the driver/keeper of the Vehicle. Despite demands being made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £100 for the PCN, £60.00 contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £XX pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% per annum, continuing at £0.04 per day.
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx
BETWEEN:
UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)
-and-
xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
Statement of Defence
I am XXXXX, defendant in this matter. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.
The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim.
(1) The Claimant did not identify the driver
(2) The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.
(3) The vehicle was insured for two people at the time of the alleged incident.
(4) The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained. The Defendant does not know who the driver was. The two insured persons cannot remember who used the car on the date in question. The Defendant has no means of finding out who the driver was, and in any event is not obliged to do so by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 or any other legislation, or pursuant to any contractual obligation. It is unreasonable of the claimant to assume that it can be recalled who was the driver at the time.
(5) Due to the Claimant’s history of lack of compliance with regulations, the Claimant must prove that it has fully complied with the strict requirements sent out in POFA 2012 Schedule 4. As the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle, these regulations must be complied with in order to hold the keeper liable.
(6) 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, which do not enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. 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.
On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.’
On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were efficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.
(7) 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. The POFA 2012 Schedule 4 states that before seeking keeper liability, the Claimant must demonstrate that there was a “relevant contract”. The Claimant is put to strict proof that a “relevant contract” existed to pay £100 and that there was (as defined in 2(3) of the statute) 'adequate notice' of that sum and legible terms.
(8) 1. 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. The claim includes an additional £60, which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
2. No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs.
3. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
4. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
5. Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
6. The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal fees" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.
(9) The defendant wrote to the claimant on xxxxx asking for:
This shall include but not limited to the following items:
- All photos taken
- Photos of any signage the claim form refers to
- The contract the claim form refers to
- All letters/emails sent and received
- All data held and all evidence you will rely on including a full copy of the Parking Charge Notice and Notice to Keeper
The claimant has not yet provided all of this information.
(10) Withholding any relevant photos of the car, signage terms and contract etc, despite being asked for by the Defendant, is against the SRA code as well as contrary to the ‘overiding objective’ in the pre action protocol. As Gladstones are a firm of solicitors whose Directors also run the IPC Trade Body and deal with private parking issues every single day of the week there can be no excuse for these omissions.
(11) UK Car Park Management are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the 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.
1. 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.
2. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
3. 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
(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. 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.
0
Comments
-
With a Claim Issue Date of 11th April, you had until Tuesday 30th April to do the Acknowledgement of Service.
Did you do the AoS by that date? Please confirm.
Assuming you did the AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 14th May 2019 to file your Defence.
That's close.
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 an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep 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.
-
Hi Keith
Thank you for your response, I shall do just that.
I forgot to mention that in the original post, yes the AOS was filed in good time.
I was going over the defence late at night and just couldn't get it finished as my brain just kept stopping functioning properly. A fresh look at it this morning allowed to get it to this point. Hopefully someone will have time to glance over it and give me some pointers 0 -
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.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
That's a really old and waffly defence first draft, and half of it is about the POFA and not knowing who was driving, even though UKCPM normally DO comply with the POFA these days. It's very hard to find a decent point of defence in all that text...Penguin_123 wrote: »Hi Keith
Thank you for your response, I shall do just that.
I forgot to mention that in the original post, yes the AOS was filed in good time.
I was going over the defence late at night and just couldn't get it finished as my brain just kept stopping functioning properly. A fresh look at it this morning allowed to get it to this point. Hopefully someone will have time to glance over it and give me some pointers
You would be best to start again an just adapt bargepole's concise defence.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 -
Thanks for your comments.
I will complain to my MP, thanks.
Coupon mad, can you send me in the right direction to Bargepoles defence? What would be the key points that I should be focusing on? Thanks.0 -
Couponmad, is this it? Thanks
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx
BETWEEN:
UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT 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 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 Company XXXX at XXXX Business Park, and had a valid permit to be parked in that bay.
3. 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.
4. 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.
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. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.
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 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
Date0 -
Yes that's one of his versions.
Remove this as it's a forum glitch from 2018, not a secret code!!!!8221
!!!8220
Are you happy that this makes sense and if ALL you want to say about the facts:
It doesn't seem to match what you told us about the gym and hotel and where the car was parked on pavement.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 Company XXXX at XXXX Business Park, and had a valid permit to be parked in that bay.
And you haven't said at the start that you were not the driver, which should be stated if true.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 -
Remember...
That's tomorrow....you have until 4pm on Tuesday 14th May 2019 to file your Defence.0 -
Thanks Keith, I will get the defence filed in the morning.
Coupon mad, yes happy with the contents of this and will remove the code and make applicable. I will amend point 2. I just wanted confirmation this was the correct template, thanks for confirming. I will finalise this evening as really busy today.
Just to confirm do I want to say about there being 2 insured drivers? It was the other driver who was driving.
Thank you for your help.0 -
YES, and state in the bit where you admit to being the registered keeper, that you were not the driver.Penguin_123 wrote: »Just to confirm do I want to say about there being 2 insured drivers? It was the other driver who was driving.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
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.7K Spending & Discounts
- 246K Work, Benefits & Business
- 602.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.8K Life & Family
- 259.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards