county court claim - please help

illusionsss

Hello everyone. Last week I received a county court claim.
Last year car was parked in a disabled bay, small supermarket (shopping centre) for approx. 5 minutes without displaying the badge. It was evening, dark. Car park is free for 1 h though.
Got notice to keeper, I wasn't the driver. Appealed but lost obviously. Debt recovery letters followed, threw them away. Solicitors letters followed, then nothing for month so threw everything away as thought they stopped. Until the court letter last week.
Joined 2 other forums and got opinions to send a SAR and CPR 31.14 which I intend to do so today. I acknowledged the claim online, intend to defend in full.
I managed to find original pcn on my phone. What can I show you for you guys to give opinions? Any pictures or letters apart from the defence?
Initial price of 100 became a little over 250 now as well...
I appreciate any help as I am becoming anxious about all this process
It involves National Prking Enforc. and Gladst...

tboo

As always the newbie thread has to be read - part 2 for you


What is the issue date on the claim form


What did you say in the initial appeal?


Have you said anything in the AOS section?


Was there a blue badge available to display?

beamerguy

Initial price of 100 became a little over 250 now as well...

Gladstones know that fake add-ons which will be £60 is not allowed but they still continue with the scam.

ABUSE OF PROCESS ..... which must be highlighted to the court

READ THIS
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

illusionsss

Issue date on the claim is 17 june. I acknowledged yesterday by the way.

It happened 1.5 years ago, I don't remember what I wrote on the appeal exactly, but I think it was a template letter from you guys from this forum. From what I read most people that appeal against a member of the IPC lose.

Their camera pics shows the driver in the car at all times, and no blue badge was available to be displayed. I got opinions 5 mins is under the grace period and to defence on that.

I already made a defence but do I wait for them to receive the SAR and CPR letters and receive response or should I submit the defence anyway?

AOS section I put my date of birth, phone number and ticked defend in full.

I will post a draft of the defence here after I modify it a little.

Redx

the defence will be emailed just before the deadline, as a signed and dated pdf attachment

if you did the AOS online , do nothing else on that MCOL site for now (or at all)

if the SAR is done you will be hoping the reply comes before the defence is due in, assume it wont come in time and plan accordingly


add the total section on AOP including all about DJ GRAND and Judge Taylor, renumber because it adds about 8 paragraphs to the defence

illusionsss

Defence draft, opinions please also for which number 7 is better first or second?

In The County Court

Claim No: xxxxx

Between

Nxxxxx Pxxxxx Exxxxx LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxx (Defendant)

_____________________________________
DEFENCE
_____________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.


2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, registration xxxxx. The particulars of the claim, state the legal basis is brought against the Defendant for ‘breach of the terms of parking" by the driver. 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 when parking at xxxxx car park on xxxxx 2018.

2.1. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.


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. 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 Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle. ‘Keeper liability’ under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) is dependent upon full compliance with that Act. It is submitted that the Claimant’s Parking Charge Notice and/or Notice to Keeper failed to comply with the statutory wording and/or deadlines set by the POFA. Any non-compliance voids any right to ‘keeper liability’.


5. The Claimant's signs are unlit and not clearly visible (especially in the dark when the APNR cameras captured the vehicle). Terms and conditions text is displayed in a font which is too small to read by the naked eye while in a stationary or moving car. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

6. The Claimant did not offer a sufficient grace period to the Driver as per the IPC Code of Practice (of which Nxxxxx Pxxxxx Exxxxx LTD is a member of). Paras. 15.1 states "Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site."

6.1. On xxxxx.2018, ANPR cameras captured the Driver entering the car park at xx.xx and leaving the car park at xx.xx, a total of 6 minutes, in the dark, time that is insufficient to read, understand and decide whether to stay or leave the site. The entrance signs of the car park are too far away for any driver to be able to read them from the car with the naked eye. The additional signs are within the car park and past the point where the ANPR camera has captured an entry time and therefore a grace period should be given to read the additional signs and decide whether to adhere to the terms of the contract or leave the car park.


Which point 7 is better ? First one or second one?

7. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land under the correct address, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.


8. IPC Code of Practice paras. 14.1 states "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 to the Code.".

The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges with no evidence of how these extra charges have been calculated.

No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.

8.1. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.

8.2. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.

8.3. Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.

8.4. The Claimant described the charge of £50 "legal representative’s costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.


9. 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. In addition to the original PCN, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added 'costs' of £60 for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.


10. In a very recent case, District Judge Taylor, dismissed a case from BWLegal that included a false amount of £60 due to abuse of process.

Claim number is F0DP201T District Judge Taylor
Southampton Court, 10th June 2019

"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 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye 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 "


11. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. The Defendant believes the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support. On the basis of the above, the Defendant requests the court to strike out the claim.


12. The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. However, with no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant is fully aware that their claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail.


13. 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.


Statement of Truth:

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name xxxxx

Date xxxxx

Redx

Those AOP additions are not good enough as DJ Grand isn't mentioned

See the latest draft in the thread by readytowin and do the same

illusionsss

I'm thick now sorry, do you mean all the info posted by c-mad? in the link you sent me about abuse of process? about 10 paras? just found it

Redx

Correct , all of them instead of what you wrote, then renumber again

illusionsss

I'm doing it now and which of the paras 7 to keep, first or second?

Le_Kirk

I would use the second one as the first one requires you to know (or suspect) that the Claimant is acting as an agent.