HX car park - Grace period court claim

KeithP

Pinksox17 wrote: »

How are people who are unaware that a machine only accepts exact change able to expected to pay for their parking, without leaving the premises?!

Upon finding out that they cannot pay for parking, they are expected to leave the premises, taking their car with them.

Pinksox17

KeithP wrote: »

Upon finding out that they cannot pay for parking, they are expected to leave the premises, taking their car with them.

I suppose that's not an unreasonable expectation....

Pinksox17

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

2. The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number xxxx on the material date.

3. The facts are that a Pay and Display Ticket (PDT) was purchased at xx:xx on the material date for the vehicle to be parked on the land for a total of two hours until xx:xx.!

4. An ANPR capture of the vehicle provided as evidence for the PCN shows entry at xx:xx:xx and exit at xx:xx:xx on the material date.

5. The PCN states that the notice relates to the ‘period!of!parking’ – the evidence shows the vehicle as it is entering and exiting, and NOT in!parking!conditions, i,e. in a stationary position, parked within a!parking!bay.

6. The signage informs drivers that they must purchase a ticket for!parking!within a 10 minute grace period, but does not make clear that the charges are for navigating the space when entering and exiting.

7. The International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice terms state that drivers are to be provided with 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.

8. This grace period provided to drivers should take into account any and all situations that could extend the time required to observe the signs and comply with the operator’s conditions. This includes, but is not limited to: mobility, the presence (and therefore safety) of children, correct means for payment and the conditions of driving within the car park.

9. The Keeper therefore states that the additional time beyond the 10 minutes grace period — alleged to be 29 seconds — is a reasonable amount taking into account the driver’s personal factors.

10. The driver has outlined in their witness statement that, on the material date, they purchased a ticket from the PDT machine within the allocated grace period based on their own timings.

11. Therefore, the Claimant is to provide strict proof, for the material date, that the ANPR system is synchronised with the PDT machine. Due to the negligible amount of time - 29 seconds — which is being disputed, a blanket assurance of the 'reliability' of ANPR systems will not suffice, since this issue is specifically about the synchronisation of two independent systems at this location.

12. 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.

13. 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. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

14. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim 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.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are!true.!

Name!
Signature
Date

Umkomaas

7. The International Parking [STRIKE]Committee[/STRIKE]

Have a further go!

Community

Pinksox17

Umkomaas wrote: »

Have a further go!

Community

Third time's a charm!

beamerguy

13. 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. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

As the fake £60 is abuse of process, you need to highlight this to the judge. READ HERE
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=76009735

and use coupon-mad's post at #14

Pinksox17

I've made a couple of amendments to the defence below, mostly to correct some errors that I'd noticed. There's also the addition of material which relates to abuse of process. I'm hoping this is looking a little more like the finished product.

Thank you for your help so far.

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

2. The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number xxxx on the material date.

3. The facts are that a Pay and Display Ticket (PDT) was purchased at xx:xx on the material date for the vehicle to be parked on the land for a total of two hours until xx:xx.!

4. An ANPR capture of the vehicle provided as evidence for the PCN shows entry at xx:xx:xx and exit at xx:xx:xx on the material date.

5. The PCN states that the notice relates to the ‘period!of!parking’ – the evidence shows the vehicle as it is entering and exiting, and NOT in!parking!conditions, i,e. in a stationary position, parked within a!parking!bay.

6. The signage informs drivers that they must purchase a ticket for!parking!within a 10 minute grace period, but does not make clear that the charges are for navigating the space when entering and exiting.

7. The International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice terms state that drivers are to be provided with 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.

8. This grace period provided to drivers should take into account any and all situations that could extend the time required to observe the signs and comply with the operator’s conditions. This includes, but is not limited to: mobility, the presence (and therefore safety) of children, correct means for payment and the conditions of driving within the car park.

9. The Keeper therefore states that the additional time beyond the 10 minutes grace period — alleged to be 29 seconds — is a reasonable amount taking into account the driver’s personal factors.

10. The driver has outlined in their witness statement that, on the material date, they purchased a ticket from the PDT machine within the allocated grace period based on their own timings.

11. Therefore, the Claimant is to provide strict proof, for the material date, that the ANPR system is synchronised with the PDT machine. Due to the negligible amount of time - 29 seconds — which is being disputed, a blanket assurance of the 'reliability' of ANPR systems will not suffice, since this issue is specifically about the synchronisation of two independent systems at this location.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.!

17. 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.!

18. 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.

19. 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...''

20. 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.

21. 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.!

22. 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 the facts contained in this Defence are!true.!

Name!
Signature
Date

Pinksox17

A quick update: N180 returned today. I received the one from GS last week. They requested special directions for a hearing on papers, as Bargepole's posts advises that they would. I have completed the form with the relevant phrasing and advised answers. Deadline for return is about 2 weeks away. Once I have a court date, I will return for guidance on producing my witness statement.

Thank you all for your help so far, in this thread and others.

Le_Kirk

Once I have a court date, I will return for guidance on producing my witness statement.

Guidance for Witness Statement (WS) and evidence stage is contained within the NEWBIE sticky, post # 2, as is all guidance for court process/procedure.

andyutd08

i am in court on the 20th august 2019 for the same thing, l believe i was 1 minute and 40 seconds over the 10 minute grace period. Hx parking as well