Claim form received HX incomplete VRN

whiskeytoothpaste

Hi,
I am helping my vulnerable aunt with this.
Happened on Vulcan's lane Workington on 6/8 last year.
She was in company vehicle and they revealed her as the driver.
My aunt claims that she put in her reg but the machine only registered the first two digits.
This is the same car park that Sue Hayman MP has urged constituents to boycot. My aunt lives outside of the constituency and SH is unable to support due to parliamentary procedure. Her local MP reversely cannot help because it did not happen in his constituency.
However, SH MP is building a group legal action against HX for this car park.

Usual correspondence. I have done a SAR request. Claim form dated 7/5 received.

I am drafting a defence based on a similar recent win on here but I want to include the information about the issue also happening to hundreds of people around the same time. I also want to include details, supported by way of a Dr's letter regarding her limiting health condition.
Is there anything I need consider beforehand or should I just post the defence here?
Am I right that I have 28 days?

Coupon-mad

I want to include the information about the issue also happening to hundreds of people around the same time.
I also want to include details, supported by way of a Dr's letter regarding her limiting health condition.

None of that goes in the defence but they are certainly good exhibits for Witness Statement and evidence stage (see NEWBIES thread).

No attachments go with defences as it's not yet at your local court.

whiskeytoothpaste

Thank you Coupon mad. I'll get a draft defence up in the next few days but I think there's not too much of a rush. 28days?

Le_Kirk

whiskeytoothpaste wrote: »

I'll get a draft defence up in the next few days but I think there's not too much of a rush. 28days?

Depends on the date of issue of the claim form and when you did the AOS on behalf of your aunt. If you post issue date here, KeithP will be along to give you the correct dates and deadlines.

KeithP

whiskeytoothpaste wrote: »

Claim form dated 7/5 received.

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th May, you have until Tuesday 28th 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 10th June 2019 to file your Defence.

That's four weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the 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.

whiskeytoothpaste

Thank you Keith P. Did the AOS today. I'll get a defence together soon. Here goes...

Fruitcake

Your Aunt's MP should be helping her irrespective of where the alleged event happened.

The_Deep

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams and will fail in court so.

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, ersistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but 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.

whiskeytoothpaste

Thank you. I'm an obsessive reader of this forum (aparrently...)
I saw the readings in parliament. I had been dealing with my own but since my rebuttal to the LBC I've heard nothing for 18 months. I've seen so much relentless good work on here.

whiskeytoothpaste

Here is my first draft based on a recent success. I am trying to obtain some images of the 'Vulcans Lane' PDT in order to see if their new stickers have made it onto those.
I also have a letter from my aunt's neurosurgeon outlining the detrimental impact that this is having on her condition. Glads requested it to compare with the Equalities act but issued a claim before it reached us, so I'm unsure what to do with the letter now.

In the County Court
Claim No xxxxxx
Between
ROBBING SCAMMERS (claimant)
Xxxxxxxxxx ( 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 XXXXXX, which at the material time was a company vehicle that was pooled for use by the defendant in order to carry out her work, was parked on the material date correctly and that a ticket was purchased and displayed in full view and there was no overstay. Proof of payment was supplied to the claimant early on in the form of the parking ticket.

2.1 The ticket was valid in as much as the correct tariff was paid and sufficient VRN was entered to positively identify the vehicle in question.

2.2. The Defendant has requested a list of all payments recorded by the PDT machine and images captured by ANPR on the material date from the claimant’s solicitors and for evidence that an alternative vehicle with the specific VRN recorded by the machine was present in the car park at the same time.

2.3 The Claimant’s website states that they recognise human error and do not issue PCNs if a digit or two is incorrectly inputted.
If the VRN entered is sufficient enough to identify the vehicle, then they must abide by their own statement of recognising human (or sticky key/machine) error and not issue a PCN.


3.The particulars of claim state that the vehicle xxxx xxx incurred the charge for breaching the terms of parking on the land at xxxxxxxx. 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 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 entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied or by conduct.

5.Furthermore 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. The important requirement of entering a full VRN into the ticket machine should be made clear to patrons in prominent lettering at the ticket machine, that failure to do so would incur a parking charge of £100.


5.1 The Claimant may try to rely upon the (completely different) Supreme Court case of Parking eye Ltd v Beavis (2015) UKSC.67. However, the defendant avers that decision confirms the assertion that this charge is unconscionable, given the signage omission at the time and the facts. To quote from the decision in Beavis:

Para 108: “But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, that could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85.”

Para 199: What matters is that a charge of the order of £85(…) is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests. Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so.”

Para 205: The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.”

6.The important and mandatory information regarding the fact that ANPR is used for enforcement purposes in the terms and conditions, are in such a small font at the very bottom of the signage as to make it unreadable.


6.1 Also it does not state specifically that the ANPR images will be compared to data from the ticket machine for the purpose of issuing a £100 penalty. There is also misleading information on the main sign at the entrance to the car park which states ‘Full terms and conditions at ticket machine’, there are no such ‘Full terms and conditions’ at the ticket machine. 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. Even if it is proven that the Claimant has the necessary authority then it cannot be claimed that there is a commercial justification for issuing parking charge notices to paying patrons, as distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis, because The defendant finds it hard to believe that the landowner would support the ticketing of fee paying patrons, thus risking further revenue. Also there is no deterrent value, because the patrons have already paid, so there is nothing to deter.

9. According to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, any goods purchased must be ‘fit for purpose’. The Ticket that was issued was not ‘fit for purpose’ The claimant took the defendant’s money to issue an invalid ticket and now wants to charge the defendant a penalty for having an invalid ticket.

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 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.

11. The penalty represents neither a necessary deterrent, nor an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests, and the Beavis case is distinguished.


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 the case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

I believe the facts contained in this defence are true

Woody510

Email Sue Hayman the MP at Workington she knows all about this car park and is pursuing legal action against HX. Also check my thread out I had the same issue with HX and they lost in court last Monday.