CPM parking charge - 3 tickets

1505grandad

The claimant is not BW Legal

Coupon-mad

You need to add the usual point - seen in almost all defences - about 'no proprietary interest' as UKCPM are just a third party agent who don't own the site.

These need to be numbered:

1. The defendant denies liability to the Claimant for the entirety of the claim:

Background:

2. The PCN...blah blah...

JEK

your right ill update that ty

JEK

'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.' Will this suffice?

Coupon-mad

Yes, add that.

Remove this line as the issue with the £60 false costs is not the same as the added £50 legal costs that they CAN claim, and DRP are NOT the same firm as UKCPM!

These costs are untrue as Debt Recovery Plus are part of the claimant company, they have simply changed letter header. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that the £50 as allegedly spent on 'legal representative’s costs were incurred.

Replace your #4 with:

4. The Claimant has added a substantial sum to the original parking charge that it is not legally allowed to recover. The original £100 has suddenly increased by £60, due to Gladstones operating a cartel-like regime for parking firms in cahoots with the International Parking Community, resulting in a false claim for 'operational costs' which in fact constitutes a cynical attempt at double recovery.

4.1. The Defendant is of the view that this Claimant knew or should have known that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private land is disallowed under the CPRs, the ParkingEye v Beavis case, the POFA 2012 (Schedule 4) and the CRA 2015 (Schedule 2), and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

4.2. A copy of one of multiple judgments by District Judge Grand at Southampton and one of multiple judgements by Deputy District Judge Joseph at Warwick are appended to this defence, which are self explanatory. Caernarfon court also summarily struck out cases for adding £60 to parking charges. At Southampton, an application was made to overturn the decision to strike out claims, but the parking firm failed and leave to appeal was refused at the application hearing on 11th November 2019 where their barrister failed to put forward any lawful reasons to support the added £60, which was declared an abuse of process that 'tainted' every parking charge claim filed by that solicitor.

4.3. If this claim is not summarily struck out for the same reasons as the Judges cited in the multiple Caernarfon, Southampton, IOW and Warwick County Court decisions, then due to this Claimant knowingly proceeding with a claim that amounts to an abuse of process, full costs will be sought by the Defendant at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

JEK

Are UKCPM associated with Gladstones even though its BW legal representing them?

How does this look now. fyi its removed my numbering copy and pasting onto here.

In The County Court

Case number:

Claimant: Car Park Management Services
Defendant:

Defence

The defendant denies liability to the Claimant for the entirety of the claim:

Background:

The PCN was issued at the defendant's place of work and the car park was used free of charge daily for almost a year. Each day reception would issue a parking permit to display on the dashboard. As soon as the defendant received the parking charge an appeal was made requesting evidence for the claim. Weeks later the defendant received a response rejecting the appeal that included no evidence and was a simple template.

The defendant had parked the vehicle in the car park causing no obstruction to any person or vehicle. It is unclear whether the area the vehicle was parked
is not permitted.

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 clearly display a permit and no parking at any time. Neither giving any definition, nor indicating where vehicles can or cannot park or what is a valid or invalid permit.

The Claimant has added a substantial sum to the original parking charge that it is not legally allowed to recover. The original £100 has suddenly increased by £60, due to Gladstones operating a cartel-like regime for parking firms in cahoots with the International Parking Community, resulting in a false claim for 'operational costs' which in fact constitutes a cynical attempt at double recovery.

The Defendant is of the view that this Claimant knew or should have known that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private land is disallowed under the CPRs, the ParkingEye v Beavis case, the POFA 2012 (Schedule 4) and the CRA 2015 (Schedule 2), and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

A copy of one of multiple judgments by District Judge Grand at Southampton and one of multiple judgements by Deputy District Judge Joseph at Warwick are appended to this defence, which are self explanatory. Caernarfon court also summarily struck out cases for adding £60 to parking charges. At Southampton, an application was made to overturn the decision to strike out claims, but the parking firm failed and leave to appeal was refused at the application hearing on 11th November 2019 where their barrister failed to put forward any lawful reasons to support the added £60, which was declared an abuse of process that 'tainted' every parking charge claim filed by that solicitor.

If this claim is not summarily struck out for the same reasons as the Judges cited in the multiple Caernarfon, Southampton, IOW and Warwick County Court decisions, then due to this Claimant knowingly proceeding with a claim that amounts to an abuse of process, full costs will be sought by the Defendant at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

The defendant can provide multiple witness statements from colleagues as the parking attendant has verbally agreed with the defendant on a previous occasion that the area in question was suitable for parking. This, along with the very vague signs lead the defendant to believe that there was no issue with parking in that area.


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.

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that above submissions in relation to the Claimant.

Statement of Truth
I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Signed

Date
19/12/19

JEK

iv noticed a couple of punctual errors that I will correct

JEK

Also, whats CPR 27.14. ?

Coupon-mad

Claimant: Car Park Management Services

I thought this was about UKCPM? Not CPMS? Which PPC scammer is it?

This part needs to be moved up to come underneath the point that ends with the word 'permitted':

The defendant can provide multiple witness statements from colleagues as the parking attendant has verbally agreed with the defendant on a previous occasion that the area in question was suitable for parking. This, along with the very vague signs lead the defendant to believe that there was no issue with parking in that area.

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.

And you do of course need to attach the 2 judgments I pointed you to attach (search the forum and find them). This is new advice here, to attach judgments to try to get your Judge to strike this case out too.

The CPRs are the Civil Procedure Rules, so Google it and read that one.

JEK

Strange, i'm sure it was UKCPM however looking at the sign and court request it is in-fact CPMS.

And thank you for the help, I have done your suggested amendments.