Parking Control Management Tickets £2000

JustWill

The £2000 is with Debt Collector fees and everything, the amount PCM have taken me to court for is £768.

What would you offer to settle out of court? What defence would you use? I need to get a defence drafted.

JustWill

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

PARKING CONTROL 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 in a bay without clearly displaying a valid permit.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant xxxxx was the registered keeper or the driver of the vehicle xxxxx. 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 appears to be based upon damages for breach of contract. However, it is denied any contract existed. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

6. The Claimant is put to strict 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, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

7. The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant's position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract

8. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case: it is unclear whether the Claimant holds a legitimate contract at this private land. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

9. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

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 claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

11. In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
11.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
11.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation. Signage is also positioned out of the eye line of any motorist driving through the estate.

11.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
11.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.

12. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

13. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

14. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

15. 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.




Abuse of Process
11. Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
- CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

- Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.
- There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Please can someone critique this so I can work on it. Any help or advice is greatly appreciated. As i said my set aside was won on Wednesday, I'm waiting for the paperwork to be sent out, which I'd imagine would be the claim form.

The_Deep

It looks good, well done. but I hope you understand what you have written, and can hold your own against cross examination by a barrister in court.

beamerguy

10. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

You need to expand on the fake £60

Read here and use the text by coupon-mad in post #14

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081

As The Deep says, they might send a hot shot lawyer and it will be very interesting how such a person could attempt to change the law, being POFA2012, let alone a judge allowing this

"The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay, This additional charge is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4"

Plus there is the courts own ruling about double recovery

JustWill

What do you mean? As in you think the double recovery will be allowed?

Is the defence good enough? Is there anything else I should be looking to put in there?

Coupon-mad

What do you mean? As in you think the double recovery will be allowed?

Nope, he meant the opposite! that's why I said earlier ''when you win...''!

Hi Coupon, yes he reserved the costs until the case is settled, If I win, I get them refunded, if I lose then they're gone.

Good. Keep going, this is worthwhile fighting, especially as you have parked your costs and want them refunded!

What would you offer to settle out of court?

Absolutely NEVER.

Utter scam industry, people should hang their heads in shame if they work for scam parking firms (i.e. all of them). How could people take that job and not realise what they are doing, in reality, and that they are NOT a 'customer service agent' for a legit 'company' at all.

I bet some clerks for PPCs are that STUPID that they don't realise, or care. If my kids did that *job* they would not be welcome at home, it's that much of a scam! Luckily the Coupon babies aren't that dumb and work in proper jobs and/or are studying proper Uni subjects and aim to make a good difference in the world. So says their proud Mum (me)!



Anyway the final paragraphs all need numbering in your defence draft, and I really, really do not like this stark admission as 'the facts are'

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked in a bay without clearly displaying a valid permit.

That should be your chance to say what the facts REALLY are, like you told us:

I genuinely didn't see the signs, the are positioned 8ft high, to the side of the highway/road and partially obscured or positioned in front of trees in places.

Not that you didn't display a permit. More that there was nothing to tell you to display one and no signs, lines or lighting, contrary to the IPC CoP and that PCM issued a predatory ticket in 2 minutes flat (they always do).

JustWill

Hi Coupon,

Do I change this "2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked in a bay without clearly displaying a valid permit."

and replace it with something saying I genuinely didn't see the signs, the are positioned 8ft high, to the side of the highway/road and partially obscured or positioned in front of trees in places.

I conducted a recent drive to the site, and there are signs there but none are in the natural eye line of the driver. When you drive, you look forward naturally and follow bends around left or right, these signs are all positioned to the side of the road, often in front of decorative trees, meaning that they aren't prominent. How do I word this properly?

I've received the documents provided to the court, from Gladstones this morning. I presume the front page is the claim form? Basically a headed letter with their reference, Client details, amount due and claim number? With the documents was a bundle of blurry photos for each ticket.

Each ticket seems to have the following.

1) Postal notification of Parking Charge. They are alleging this is a NTK but doesn't state that anywhere.
2) Parking Charge Keeper Liability (After they've contacted DVLA)
3) Case evidence report. A series of blurry photos taken at 02.36am. Timings are between 2am-6am on all tickets.

I have just under 2 weeks to serve this defence. Any guidance would be massively appreciated.

JustWill

Also should I take a video or photos to aid my defence showing that these signs aren't in the eye line of the driver or would it be detrimental and indeed have the opposite effect?

Umkomaas

JustWill wrote: »

Also should I take a video or photos to aid my defence showing that these signs aren't in the eye line of the driver or would it be detrimental and indeed have the opposite effect?

You always need your own photos of signage (positioning and content) as that is the purported contract between the driver and the PPC, the 'contract' will be what the claimant will be arguing has been broken.

You will only use those photographs that help your case. If any obstruct or hinder your case, you obviously do not use those.

You won't be submitting photos with your defence, however, it will be at Witness Statement stage you present your evidence.

JustWill

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

PARKING CONTROL 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 the signage at the site is poor. No signage is positioned in the drivers eye line, any signage is located at the side of the road, conveniently positioned in front of trees lining the road and is partially obscured and cannot be realistically expected to have been seen clearly by any motorist using the site, let alone the wording on such sign.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant xxxxx was the registered keeper or the driver of the vehicle xxxxx. 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 appears to be based upon damages for breach of contract. However, it is denied any contract existed. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

6. The Claimant is put to strict 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, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

7. The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant's position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract

8. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case: it is unclear whether the Claimant holds a legitimate contract at this private land. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

9. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

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 claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

11. In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
11.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
11.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
11.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
11.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
11.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.
12. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.
13. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.
14. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

15. 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.

Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
- CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) Only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) Resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

- Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

- The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

- Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

- According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

- The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

- Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

- In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

- There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

- The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.


Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.


Name

Signature


Date

I've added coupons post with regards to "Costs on the claim" and the fake £60. Do these points need numbering? I've changed point 2 aswell.

I'll take photos of the signs being covered or positioned in front of trees then?