County Court claim form

Redx

The court case could be in a few months time, up to 6 months
The DPO has 30 days to reply to a SAR
There is no chance of this going to court in the 30 days allowed for a SAR reply
Your SAR reply may come after the defence is submitted, but we'll before any court hearing

The wheels of justice grind very slowly

Disgruntled_parker

Redx wrote: »

The court case could be in a few months time, up to 6 months
The DPO has 30 days to reply to a SAR
There is no chance of this going to court in the 30 days allowed for a SAR reply
Your SAR reply may come after the defence is submitted, but we'll before any court hearing

The wheels of justice grind very slowly

That may well be the case however, the defendant needs to submit the defence before that 30 day deadline. Assuming of course they honour the deadline. Therefore the defendant will be hoping there are no other photos other than those attached to the PCN

Redx

in which case the defendant brings this all up in the WS and also in any EXHIBITS if it is required (so bring up these issues at the WS stage after allowing for this eventuality in the defence) - almost everyone else is in that same boat

we know the defendant may not get the SAR reply in time, so the defence must cater for that eventuality anyway , but you said "before the court hearing" , you didnt say "before the defence has to be submitted"

2 totally different timeframes

Coupon-mad

End any 'PPC scam claim' defence like this:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=75922229#post75922229

The idea is to make the Judges start to think about PPCs being vexatious litigants.

Disgruntled_parker

Ok so this is my second attempt at a defence. Do you think it's sufficient:


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. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle, registration XXXX at the time of the alleged incident.

3. The particulars of the claim state that the Defendant XXXX; was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle XXXX. 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, the evidence supplied by the claimant suggesting a breach in any alleged contract is deemed insufficient. The images provided do not identify the defendants vehicle or any specific vehicle, as no VRM is visible. In addition the time printed on the images does not make reference to any pay and display machine from which the parking ticket may have been issued. The time therefore printed on the images supplied is considered irrelevant and unrelated to a breach in any alleged contract.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM) 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...''

13.1 The Court will note that this Claimant, UKCPM, is one of those known to have been sanctioned for abuse of process by the above court circuit and continues to file claims with the same untrue and unrecoverable added costs. The judgment from DJ Grand Newport, (IOW) will be adduced in evidence if this case - with the same abuse of process and disregard for the rules of court and the rights of consumers - continues to trial.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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

Coupon-mad

Add:

13.1 The Court will note that this Claimant, UKCPM, is one of those known to have been sanctioned for abuse of process by the above court circuit and continues to file claims with the same untrue and unrecoverable added costs. The judgment from DJ Grand Newport, IOW) will be adduced in evidence if this case - with the same abuse of process and disregard for the rules of court and the rights of consumers - continues to trial.

Disgruntled_parker

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Add:

13.1 The Court will note that this Claimant, UKCPM, is one of those known to have been sanctioned for abuse of process by the above court circuit and continues to file claims with the same untrue and unrecoverable added costs. The judgment from DJ Grand Newport, IOW) will be adduced in evidence if this case - with the same abuse of process and disregard for the rules of court and the rights of consumers - continues to trial.

Thanks for your advice. I've just amended the defence accordingly.

I have until July to submit this defence however, I don't see any benefit in delaying unless you suggest otherwise.

Coupon-mad

No I reckon go for it unless you are about to go on holiday abroad for a month and would miss the 14 days to return the next form (DQ) as explained in the NEWBIES thread.

Disgruntled_parker

Quick update with this case.

The defence was submitted and subsequently acknowledged by the court via mail 10 days ago. They also suggested that the claimant may contact the defendant in an attempt to resolve the case without court action.

Today the defendant received a letter from Gladstone complete with a copy of their DQ which they have filed with the court. They go on to say they have requested a special direction that the case is dealt with on the papers, without a hearing. They say the case is straightforward and any costs incurred by both parties for an oral hearing would be disproportionate.

They end by declining mediation but are willing to listen to any genuine payment proposal.

Just to clarify. Should I now just wait for the DQ the court will send me.

Thanks as always for any guidance offered

Quentin

Yes


This is a bullying tactic they use.


(You don't want this dealt with on the papers!)