Defence for checking and help please!

Bumblebee25

Hello
I got a PCN in December 2017, did try to appeal but rejected and I missed the response (went into junk). So I then followed the general rule of ignore. I have now had the letter before claim and claim forms from the court.
I have read lots of the posts including the sticky one. I have submitted the acknowledgement of service and a SAR request.
My PCN was for overstaying the hour the driver was totally unaware as had parked before no problems, there is no parking payment machine and the signs are terrible in the dark.
There was a change between April and Oct 2017 from 2 hours free parking to 1.
My defence is a mix mainly Joey Santiago, with a bit of Bargepole and Mrs Pickles.
I'd be really grateful for any advice.
My court claim is dates 17th June 19 and my deadline to submit the defence is 22nd July.

Bumblebee25

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

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, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date at xxxxxxx for xx hour and xx minutes.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that they believe 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.
4. The terms on the Claimant’s signage are also displayed in a font that is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. The signs are not lit and are not visible from all parking bays. It is, therefore denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

5. In addition it is denied that the signs at this location met the mandatory test of transparency of terms that are ‘bound to be seen’ as set out within the Consumer Rights Act 2015. For a driver any terms relating to a parking contract would have had to have been extremely clear in all places within the site, in very large letters to ensure all drivers were ‘bound to see’ the terms.
6. Since the material date the signs have been updated and additions made, suggesting that improvements were required.

7. It is denied that there was agreement to pay a parking charge.

8. 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.
9. The signage and free period of parking were amended in the period from April 2017 to October 2017. The Claimant failed to highlight this change of contract terms as demanded by British Parking Association Approved Operator Code of Practice (version 7 January 2018, Clause 18.10 ) "Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional/temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the new ones.”
IPC Code of Practice (Part E, Schedule 1 - Signage. Changes in Operator’s Terms and Conditions) also states "Where there is any change in the terms and conditions materially affecting the motorist you may place additional (temporary) signage at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges. This signage should be in addition to the signage ordinarily required."

10. 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 £77.90, for 'contractual costs persuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest' which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

11. Further to point 8 above I believe this to be an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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: District Judge Taylor stated "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…"

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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. 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.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
Name
Signature
Date

The_Deep

Several paragraphs are too long imo.

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so complain to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

KeithP

Bumblebee25 wrote: »

I have submitted the acknowledgement of service...
My court claim is dates 17th June 19 and my deadline to submit the defence is 22nd July.

With a Claim Issue Date of 17th June, you had until Monday 8th July to do the Acknowledgement of Service. I am going to assume you did the AoS by that date. Please confirm.

You are right... if you did the AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 22nd July 2019 to file your Defence.

As you know, that's just a few days away.

When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Quentin

Throughout here you are advised never to reveal who was driving

You need to edit your OP to remove details of who was driving

The ppcs monitor this forum and can use posts in your thread against you in Court

Bumblebee25

Quentin wrote: »

Throughout here you are advised never to reveal who was driving

You need to edit your OP to remove details of who was driving

The ppcs monitor this forum and can use posts in your thread against you in Court

Thank you I have removed!

Coupon-mad

#9 should be higher, next to the other points about signs, and you need to remove the BPA CoP quote and replace it with whatever the IPC CoP archive version on the material date said about new restrictions (might be version 5? Google it and try to find the dates of each version).

UKCPM are not in the BPA AOS and haven't been for years.

Bumblebee25

Coupon-mad wrote: »

#9 should be higher, next to the other points about signs, and you need to remove the BPA CoP quote and replace it with whatever the IPC CoP archive version on the material date said about new restrictions (might be version 5? Google it and try to find the dates of each version).

UKCPM are not in the BPA AOS and haven't been for years.

Thank you for the above. Unfortunately I sent my defence before making the above adjustments I had to get it sent before going on holiday. Will this be a major problem?
I now have a court date in January.
I am currently working on my witness statement so will be back soon asking for more help!

Coupon-mad

You can address this in your WS.

Search the forum for Jack Chapman UKCPM and read the resulting threads.