Finding the Data Officer for Parking Charge Limited

lass2019

Since my last post I've requested and received my SAR and BW Legal refused to put case on hold as predicted. I've read through lots of defence statements, BW Legal cases etc and this is the first draft of my Defence Statement. I would very much appreciate any feedback before I submit it!


DEFENCE STATEMENT

I, XXX am the Defendant in this claim and I assert that the Claimant, Parking Charge Limited has no cause for action.

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged contravention.
2. The claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of vehicle XXXXXXX when parked at “XXXXXX” on XXXXX. The PCN states the contravention as “Parked in a permit area without displaying or holding a correct and valid permit”.

3. Further based upon the details contained in the Claimants and their legal representative BW Legal’s correspondence, it appears to be the Claimant's case that:

a. There was an agreement to hold or display a parking permit
b. The Defendant was given opportunity to make representation against the PCN.
c. There was a contract formed by the Defendant and the Claimant on XXXX.
d. There was clear signage in and around the site
e. In addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.

4. It is denied that:
a. There was an agreement to hold or display a parking permit.
b. The Defendant was given an opportunity to make representation against the PCN.
c. There was a contract formed by the Defendant and the Claimant on XXXX
d. There was clear signage in and around the site
e. In addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.

5. It is further denied that the Defendant is liable for the purported debt.

Rebuttal of Claim

There was no agreement to hold or display a parking permit.

6. The Defendant did not enter into any agreement on the charge, no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

7. The Defendant denies that they would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 or £60 within 14 days or agreed to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

8. The Defendant held a valid parking permit and made all reasonable efforts to display it. There can be no contravention where a valid parking permit was held. The Defendant still holds the valid parking permit with date and vehicle registration as issued by the Defendants place of work, the XXXXX Primary School.
a. The Defendant holds a signed statement from the Headmaster of XXXXX Primary School confirming that the Defendant was issued with an authorised and valid parking permit on the date in question.

b. The Claimant has shown photographs of the vehicle to the Defendant, which they believe shows no permit displayed on the date in question. These photos are not of sufficient quality to determine whether a permit is visible or not; they are either taken from too far away, at strange angles or due to the reflection on the windscreen nothing is visible within the vehicle.

c. The terms and conditions that the Claimant displays on their single sign at the site state “1. Registered Permit Holders Only”. There is no mention of displaying the permit. Even if the Defendant had not displayed their parking permit they would still not be in breach of the terms and conditions.

The Defendant was not given opportunity to make representation against the PCN.

9. The Defendant made all reasonable efforts to appeal the unfair PCN to the Claimant but was unable to use their appeals process because the Claimants computer system considers the PCN 80021567 and/or Vehicle Registration SH59 ONJ to be ‘invalid’. When the Claimant does not recognise their own PCN then it cannot be valid, much less appealed against, much less enforced.

There was no contract formed by the Defendant and the Claimant on 10/12/2018.

10. It is the will of Parliament following the EU Consumer Rights Directive that express consent is obtained for consumer contracts (not implied consent) and that information is provided in a durable medium in advance.

11. There is no contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, but even if there was a contract then it would be unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The requirements of forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, certainty of terms, etc., were not satisfied.

There was not clear signage in and around the site

12. The claimant company did not fully complied with their obligations within the British Parking Association Code of Practice of which they are member.
a. The signage on and around the site in question was unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the BPA at the time and committed to follow its requirements. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay the amount demanded by the Claimant, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.
b. The BPA code of conduct states in section 18.2 “as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area.”
The XXXX site has only a small single entrance sign and no other signs, this is directly against the stipulations of the BPA.
c. A single small sign cannot be considered “clear signage, in and around the site”

13. 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.

In addition to the parking charge there was no agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.

14. The Claimant’s representatives, BW Legal, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £60 to £168.28. The Defendant submits the Claimant has not actually incurred the added cost; these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts.
a. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £60 to £168.28. This appears to be an added cost with no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the Protection Of Freedom Act 2012 (POFA) Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
b. In addition to the original PCN penalty of £60, for which liability is denied plus the unjustified additional £108.28 the Claimants solicitors have also artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding more 'costs' of £50. Again, the Defendant submits these costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.
c. This £50 ‘cost’ is described as ‘Legal Representatives Cost’s’ and further increase the sum to £218.28. This is a gross abuse of process.

15. Not only are such costs not permitted in Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 27.14 but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs. Given the fact that BW Legal boasted in Bagri v BW Legal Ltd of processing 'millions' of claims with an admin team (and only a handful of solicitors), the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims at all.
a. I invite the court to read the following case: Claim number: F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor, Southampton Court, 10th June 2019. District Judge Taylor, dismissed a case from BW Legal that included a false amount of £60

16. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA and as stated in POFA Paragraph 4(5) the maximum sum the Claimant can recover is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

There has been no genuine loss

17. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question

a. 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.

18. The PCN received makes no mention of VAT and therefore cannot be considered a charge for services rendered. The charge, therefore, can only be construed to be a penalty, which is not allowed, or as claim for liquidated damages.
a. The charge for the alleged contravention is a punitive penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
b. The charge of £218.28 for the alleged contravention is extravagant and unconscionable.

Abuse of Process
19. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details or even checking for a true cause of action. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims and the solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

20. The Defendant believes the terms for such conduct is ‘robo claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers.

21. The Defendant respectfully suggests that 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.

22. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

23. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons

24. The Defendant respectfully asks the court to dismiss the action against the defendant.

I believe that the facts stated in this defence statement are true.

Coupon-mad

Whenever I see the heading:

DEFENCE STATEMENT

...and this horribly clunky & unnecessary repetition of the scammer's claim:

3. Further based upon the details contained in the Claimants and their legal representative BW Legal’s correspondence, it appears to be the Claimant's case that:

a. There was an agreement to hold or display a parking permit
b. The Defendant was given opportunity to make representation against the PCN.
c. There was a contract formed by the Defendant and the Claimant on XXXX.
d. There was clear signage in and around the site
e. In addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.

4. It is denied that:
a. There was an agreement to hold or display a parking permit.
b. The Defendant was given an opportunity to make representation against the PCN.
c. There was a contract formed by the Defendant and the Claimant on XXXX
d. There was clear signage in and around the site
e. In addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.

5. It is further denied that the Defendant is liable for the purported debt.

...I know that the poster has copied a really old example.

try searching for something like this to find a more recent and relevant one:

school permit defence

Or just search for perfect defence and find a post by me this month.

lass2019

Found a school permit defence similar to mine and made some adjustments. I'm concerned it may be a bit waffly... but I wanted to get everything down...

Feedback much appreciated


DEFENCE

I, XXXX am the Defendant in this case and I deny liability for the entirety of the claim.

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged contravention.

2. The claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of vehicle XXXXX when parked at “Cambridge University” on XXXX. The PCN states the contravention as “Parked in a permit area without displaying or holding a correct and valid permit”.

3. The particulars of the claim, state the legal basis is brought against the Defendant for ‘breach of the car park terms and conditions’. 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.

4. The Defendant held a valid parking permit and made all reasonable efforts to display it. The Defendant still holds the valid parking permit with date and vehicle registration as issued by the Defendants place of work, the University of Cambridge Primary School.
a. The Defendant holds a signed statement from the Headmaster of University of Cambridge Primary School confirming that the Defendant had permission to use the car park and was issued with an authorised and valid parking permit on the date in question.
b. On the day it would appear that the permit had been dislodged from the windscreen area of the Defendants car. The terms and conditions that the Claimant displays on their small single sign at the site state “1. Registered Permit Holders Only”. The sign does not contain an obligation as to how to ‘validly display’ the permit in the windscreen, therefore there was no breach of any ‘relevant obligation’ or ‘relevant contract’ as required under Schedule 4 of Protection Of Freedom Act (POFA).

5. The Defendant made all reasonable efforts to appeal the PCN to the Claimant but was unable to use their appeals process because the Claimants computer system considers the PCN XXXX and/or Vehicle Registration XXX to be ‘invalid’. When the Claimant does not recognise their PCN it cannot be considered valid. It follows that the PCN cannot be appealed against or enforced.
a. Following numerous attempts to appeal and due to the absence of any contact details on the Claimants website the Defendant took the PCN letter to be a scam.
b. Despite alerting the Claimants legal council BW Legal, to the appeals process failure and supplying them with evidence of the permit and schools statement they have refused to take either into consideration or address the system failure.

6. The Defendant did not enter into any agreement on the charge, no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

7. The Defendant denies that they would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 or £60 within 14 days or agreed to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

8. The signage on and around the site in question was unclear and not prominent. The Claimant did not fully comply with their obligations within the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice of which they are member and obligated to follow its requirements.
a. The BPA code of conduct states in section 18.2 “as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area.”. The Cambridge University site has only a small single entrance sign and no other signs, directly against the stipulations of the BPA.
b. One small sign is not “clear signage, in and around the site”.
c. In addition, the terms on the Claimant's single small sign are displayed in a font too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and placed some 8ft high. Industry standard signs recommend a minimum height of 3 inches in a bold font to have any readable impact at 30 feet. 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.
d. In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.

9. In order to issue and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. The Claiment has taken no steps to provide such evidence and the Claimant is put to strict proof. Subsequently there is no evidence that CEL are acting in accordance with the Landowners instructions.
a. The Claimant is merely an agent claiming to be acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
b. 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.

10. The Claimant’s representatives, BW Legal, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £60 to £243.28. The Defendant submits the Claimant has not actually incurred the added cost; these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts.
a. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated. There appears to be added costs with no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the Protection Of Freedom Act 2012 (POFA) Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
b. The Claimant describes a charge of £50 as "legal representative costs’’ not "contractual costs". Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 27.14 does not permit these to be recoverable in the Small Claims Court.
c.. The Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs. Given the fact that BW Legal boasted in Bagri v BW Legal Ltd of processing 'millions' of claims with an admin team (and only a handful of solicitors), the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims at all. This is a gross abuse of process.
d. In Claim number: F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor, Southampton Court, 10th June 2019. District Judge Taylor, dismissed a case from BW Legal that included a false amount of £60.

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.
a. As stated in POFA Paragraph 4(5) the maximum sum the Claimant can recover is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

12. 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...''

13. 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.

14. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused. The Defendant respectfully suggests that 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. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

15. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons

I believe that the facts stated in this defence statement are true.

Coupon-mad

parked at “Cambridge University”

There is no such site, as Cambridge Uni isn't a campus Uni and your primary school isn't 'Cambridge University'.

If you agree with me on that (pedantic but true?) you'd have to change your later reference to it:

The Cambridge University site

My point is, you could add if you agree with me, that the PCN fails to state the correct location. A site called 'Cambridge University' only exists across the 31 colleges and numerous other buildings, exam halls etc, dotted around the City.

This was not one of them - I looked and saw this is a free school funded by the Uni but the site doesn't appear to be ''Cambridge University'' per se.

b. Despite alerting the Claimants legal council BW Legal

Should be legal firm (not Council).

Subsequently there is no evidence that CEL are acting in accordance with the Landowners instructions.

CEL are a different parking firm! Check through the entire thing in case any other blips like that have been copied.

A much better defence than the first one!

Maybe add a 9c:

9 c The Claimant and their legal representatives are already aware that any 'legitimate interest' justification they thought they might have had, does not exist, given the clear information the Defendant provided to resolve this farcical case in the pre-action communications. Not only are they aware that the Primary School Headteacher does not support the charge - removing any commercial justification excuse and setting it apart from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 in all relevant facts - but the Defendant avers that the ticketer knew or should have known that the car was authorised. It was parked there with a permit on a daily basis and it is averred that the same staff (or a small team) visit the sites and are familiar with the teaching and admin staff's cars and were simply looking for an opportunity to issue a PCN to a person they knew was authorised all along, using careful photographic angles to avoid showing where the permit had slipped but was visible through the windscreen. The Claimant is put to proof, should they try to counter this true summary from the Defendant who is an honest witness to the events that day, and the Defendant expects to be given a fair opportunity to personally question the ticketer at trial, given it will be a local hearing and this person (who is known to them from their records from that PCN) is their only true witness.

lass2019

Thanks for replying so quickly! I've added your suggestion of 9c and amended the mistakes you spotted.

In all correspondence and on the claim form they call the site "Cambridge University - Permit Holders Only". But I think you are right in saying in this is an incorrect location as it cannot be Cambridge University. The car park doesn't show on google maps, I imagine because it is taken to be part of the primary school site. The Eddington Cambridge website says "Permit holder only areas include: University of Cambridge Primary School car park". Which as you say, is not what they have stated the location as. Even with the addition of 'permit holders only' I think I can argue incorrect location on PCN?

lass2019

After filing the defence above a few weeks later I received a letter from BW Legal saying Parking Charge Limited wish to continue the case. I received the Directions Questionnaire a few days following. I have now filled this in and will be returning it to the court, keeping a copy for myself and sending a copy to Parking Charge Limited.
Should I also send a copy to BW Legal?

Would it be a good move to try and chase Parking Charge Limited for proof that they have written authority of the landowner to issue fines on their behalf?

Many Thanks!

KeithP

You send your completed DQ to the CCBC in the same manner and to the same email address that you set your Defence. Refresh your memory on that by re-reading post #7 above.

You also send a copy of your completed DQ to the Claimant - BWLegal.
Their address is on your Claim Form - in the box labelled "Address for sending documents and payments (if different)".

lass2019

UPDATE

I received a letter with a court date in mid December - much quicker than I anticipated.
The claimant (Parking Charge Ltd) had to pay the court fee or file a properly completed application earlier this week or the claim is struck out.
If the claim goes ahead I have to deliver to the claimant and the court office copies of all the documents I intend to reply on at the hearing.

Does anyone know how I would check if they have paid the fee or not? The most recent transaction on Money Claim Online is in October (when the claim was assigned to a court).

Redx

Contact the court

Ensure that you submit your WS plus Exhibits plus costs schedule by the due date on your court order , let the claimant fail to follow procedures

KeithP

lass2019 wrote: »

The claimant (Parking Charge Ltd) had to pay the court fee or file a properly completed application earlier this week or the claim is struck out.
Does anyone know how I would check if they have done this or not? The most recent transaction on Money Claim Online is in October (when the claim was assigned to a court).

Assume they have paid the fee and, if you've not already done so, prepare your Witness Statement and evidence.

MCOL is not updated after the case has been transferred to the hearing court.