Markham Retail Park Chesterfield - Now County Court Business Centre

KeithP

But if they had 'a vested interest' in it at the date of the alleged incident, that is all that matters.

dalew007

ok, i thought it may have been good news, i thought i has read a post that someone had a similar scenario and was successful on those grounds.

dalew007

Re jigged a little

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 with registration ****** of which the Defendant was the Registered Keeper was parked at [location]

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant; was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle;. 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. These assumptions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action and therefore there is no liability towards the Defendant.

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. If a parking breach did occur as alleged by the Claimant then this would be a matter for the landowner to pursue for any damages resulting from the trespass. The Claimant is put to strict proof that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Vehice Control Services and that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land and necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue pieces parking charge notices pursuing payment by means of litigation.

6. The claimant’s Notice to Keeper indicates the Reason for Issue as ‘Parked in a restricted area in a car park’. No evidence has been provided to the defendant showing a restricted area, the pictures taken show the car parked in a marked bay next to other vehicles. The car was parked for a matter of minutes and then driven away, no PCN was attached to the car but days later posted to the registered keeper which was written up after the event. This appears to be a victimised attack and an attempt to extort money from an unsuspecting innocent party.
a. Furthermore letters from Vehicle Control Services seem not to know the basis of the alleged contravention and has misled the keeper in letters, both about the allegation and about the keeper's liability, letters posted to the registered keeper state "You were observed to leave site by our Patrol Officer"
b. The International Parking Community (IPC) code of Practice, of which the claimant is a member, states on this point: 14. Predatory Tactics 14.1 You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance and will be dealt with under the sanctions system as defined in schedule 2 of the Code. If the Patrol officer allowed the alleged driver to walk off site for them to be able to write them up a Parking Charge notice, or "invoice", as the IPC code of coduct refer to them as is surely classed as predatroy tactics, the driver, a victim, was observed to leave site.
c. The burden of proof shifts to Vehicle Control Solutions to prove otherwise, and to explain why their attendant watched a driver or occupant walk towards the edge of an undefined boundary and yet made no attempt to stop/warn the driver or even ascertain if a passenger had already been dropped at the door of the premises. No evidence has been provided to the defendant showing the claimant’s site boundary or the defendant actually leaving the site.
d. The signage does not demonstrate a map showing the claimant's site boundary, a restricted area of parking nor were there any writing in the bays stating a restricted area. Parking was free, the entrance and exit were not gated and the car obstructed nobody.

7. Further 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.
a.The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), 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, which in this case is £60. The Claimant includes an additional £100 in this claim, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. It is apparent that apart from court fees incurred, any added legal fees/costs are simply made up by the Claimant.
a. 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:
b. 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
c. 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.

9. 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 'debt collection 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.

10. A Parking Charge cannot be disguised as a fee or a sum in damages owed to a firm which does not own the land but allows cars to trespass upon it. The decision of the supreme court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass.

11. 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...''

12. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the defendant is keeping a note of wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

13. It is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Consequently, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

Coupon-mad

restircted

Typo above, and wrong name for the IPC below:

Independant Parking Comitte (IPC)

dalew007

fixed.

dalew007

can anyone advise if my defence looks ok to send across

thanks

dalew007

can anyone cast an eye over my defence and advise if i need to alter anything else, i am a little worried the response date is getting ever closer and would like to get this sent asap.


many thanks in advance

Le_Kirk

1. If Coupon-mad has reviewed your defence and only come up with a typo, I would take that as tacit approval
2. Your point 11 needs to make absolutely certain that you are QUOTING from the other case rather than issuing an order/instruction to the court: -

Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing: The Defendant quotes from the District Judges ''IT IS ORDERED THAT the claim is struck out

dalew007

Ok thanks, i will check other wordings from other cases.

dalew007

11. 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) the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing: The Defendant quotes from the District Judges''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''