Double Parking Charge Notice for "Not displaying a valid permit"

pastacolg

Thank you, both!

I will defend it then using the new template.

pastacolg

I've just filled my defence. Awaiting the next steps in a few months.

Thank you for pointing me to the new defence resources!

Fruitcake

Go back through this thread and ensure you have all relevant dates when you need to do something in your diary, updating where necessary.

You can ask for both claims to be combined. Having separate ones is a deliberate ploy by them to get double the costs if they win. Don't fall for it; you want a single claim.

pastacolg

Thanks.

Actually there's a single County Court Claim. Although I'm not sure a judge will like the fact that they ramped the initial £200 PCNs by  £130 and now are claiming £330 in total for the same contravention (parking in my own space without a permit shown for 2 days in a row). It surely goes against the Southmapton's ruling in late 2019 regarding a proportional penalty.

pastacolg

Today I will be sending my DQ back for this case.

I wonder if I still have a chance going with a papers-only case. Below is a response from a parking company's lawyer.

Response to your Defence Internet defence
In respect of the contents of your Defence, it is apparent that a large amount of the information contained therein has simply been 'copied and pasted' from an external  basis. Large portions of your Defence are nonsensical and, in consideration of the circumstances of this individual matter, are entirely irrelevant.

Irrespective of the large volume of nonsensical content within your Defence, given that the same is endorsed by a statement of truth, coupled with the fact that the content is evidently copied, your Defence cannot possibly be deemed within the scope of your own knowledge. Notwithstanding the procedural Issues set out above, you have tenders no evidence In support of your position. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence in support of your allegations, our Client's positron remains unchanged to that which has previously been set out to you.

The evidence held in our Clients favour supports the logical conclusion that you failed to display a valid permit. Therefore, your breach of the terms of the contractual Scarce affording you permission to occupy the land In question the car park/ is unequivocal.

In consideration of the above, it is our Client's position that your Defence is no more than a 'copy and Paste' exercise to obscure legitimate proceedings for recovery of sums which are contractually owing.

You deny entering a contract
Upon entering the Can Park, the signage In situ (I.e. the 'offer) made clear the terms and conditions associated with parking on the private land. By your action of entering and parking In our Chants Car Park you had accepted of the terms and conditions. It is our Client's epsilon, therefore, that you did enter into a contract with our Client, and are therefore liable for any consequences of breaching the same.

You were not the driver end the requirements to establish keeper liability have not been met

You have made an allegation that you were not the driver of the Vehicle on the Contravention Dates. As the registered keeper of the Vehicle, and given that you had not provided our Client with the full name and serviceable address of the driver within 28 days from the date of the PCNs, our Client is able to hold you liable for the unpaid parking charge under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Please note that our Chant has compiled with all the requirements under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to establish keeper liability.

The sum is a penalty as it exceed the amount stated in ParkingEye v Bevis.
It is an attempt at double recovery the PCN change is regarded as a charge for contravening the terms and conditions. The sum payable following the issue of the PCNs occurs on the happening of a specific event (i.e. a material breach of the terms and conditions) and is therefore a core term of our Clients contract with you. It is Irrelevant whether or not the charge as displayed bears any relation to the cost for parking (even where there is no cost involved). Our Client relies on the leading authority of ParkingEye Limited v Beavis 120151 UKSC 67, where the Supreme Court held that PCN charges, like this charge, serve a legitimate commercial interest. The relevant car parking Codes of Practice, also give guidance that £100.00 is a reasonable sum to charge.

The signage in situ makes provision for our Client to recover any additional costs (Contractual Costs) incurred by them in relation to the PCNs. The Contractual Costs referred to above formed part of the terms and conditions (of the parking contract) which were accepted by you in the course of staying at the Car Park. These costs are entirely reasonable for nature and type of work involved in recovering the parking charges, such costs are recoverable under the relevant parking code of practice.

The additional amount is made up of costs and fees under the Civil Procedure Rules and interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1974. 11114

This is an unfair consumer contract
In response to your allegation that the parking charge falls foul of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (Regulations). Our Client relies on the leading authority of ParkingEye Limited vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, where the Supreme Court held that PCN charges, like this charge, serve a legitimate commercial interest and are not unfair.

You had parked your car in your allocated space as per your contract
The signage in situ clearly states that vehicles must display a valid permit in the front windscreen at all times when using tne Car Park, evidently you did not do this on either of the Contravention Dates. There is no evidence that you have an unfettered right to park at the Car Park.

It is noted that you have mentioned in your defence that you have a right to park due to your leasehold agreement. Please provide a full copy of the same within 7 days from the day following this letter.

The signage is insufficient
At the time of the contraventions, the Claimant was a member of the International Parking Community ('IPC'). The IPC is an Accredited Trade Association within the parking industry. As the Claimant was an established member of the IPC at the time of the contravention, it had to adhere to the IPC's Code of Practice for parking on private land. This Code of Practice gives recommendations in regards to the signage within the Car Park. The signs within the Car Park fully comply with the recommendations outlined in the Code of Practice and are therefore deemed reasonable. The signs are clearly displayed, and you would have had the opportunity to read and understand them on parking at the Car Park. An objective observer would consider this action to have been done in acceptance of the terms and conditions. The signage at the Car Park clearly incorporates the terms and conditions. For all intents and purposes, the signage is correct, and sufficient attention was brought to you with regards to the terms and conditions.

The claimant is put to strict proof that they have sufficient proprietary interest in the land to issue PCNs
Our Client is engaged by the landowner/lawful occupier of the Can Park to manage and enforce the parking conditions in situ, and is therefore able to manage the Can Park, issue PCNs and enforce them.

It looks like they are mostly worried about my leaseholder agreement which, this time, I will attach to the WS.

Should I still go without a hearing though?

nosferatu1001

Yawn
Seriously. yawn. Thats an EXACT template sent dozens of times
Notice how they dont bother to specify which elements are "nonsensical"? Nope? well guess why....
You wont be going ahead on papers, surely?! Noone here recommends that. 

D_P_Dance

You have made an allegation that you were not the driver of the Vehicle

Surely not, a statement perhaps.  That word alone would be enough for me to complain to the regulator.   

It is our Client's epsilon, (sic) therefore, that you did enter into a contract with our Client, and are therefore liable for any consequences of breaching the same.

What about your leasehold rights?  Total and utter BS 

They have not provided any proof,let alone strict proof.  Write back to them pulling the letter to shreds, copying it to the SRA headed complaint.

https://www.sra.org.uk/

Have you complained to your MP?

beamerguy

Which legal has sent you such rubbish ???

pastacolg

Thanks, guys! I nearly fell for it.

nosferatu1001 said:

(...) You wont be going ahead on papers, surely?! Noone here recommends that. 

I know but I'm not in the UK any more. The cost of flying back (whenever it will be possible) for a court hearing will exceed the PCNs. I guess a judge would not appreciate me cockily stating that I'll be available for a hearing after the pandemic. So my options are limited. Unless I ask my friend (not a lawyer) that's still in the city I lived to appear before a judge.

D_P_Dance said:

(...) What about your leasehold rights?  Total and utter BS 

Exactly. The only problem is that I couldn't find my leaseholder agreement on time to have it scanned and attached to my defence. I will attach it as a separate PDF page of my Witness Statement though. I think it's going to be alright as on my other case 1 year ago a judge asked for a copy during the hearing. So it seems it's never too late.

beamerguy said:

Which legal has sent you such rubbish ???

B(-M)W Legal

pastacolg

BTW, I find their below statement slanderous at best.

(...) coupled with the fact that the content is evidently copied, your Defence cannot possibly be deemed within the scope of your own knowledge (...)