Premier Parking\ BW legal- County Claim Form received

beamerguy

countdowniscool wrote: »

Thanks KeithP, Beamerguy and Le_kirk.

Hopefully I have listened properly and changed the defense appropriately, I have removed what i think would be evidence and witness statements and I have copied coupon-mads text verbatim (thanks coupon-mad). Does it look as it should do now??

I have done the AoS and its been acknowledged. I get the impression you know your onions KeithP, knowing the claim came from Northampton.

Bottom line is that we cannot have thugs trying to scam the public and the courts .....

countdowniscool

I just want to say thanks to all of you, i'll print the defense as above and submit it.

assuming i have read it right i'll move onto some witness statements

thanks again.

Coupon-mad

countdowniscool wrote: »

Sincere thanks to Quentin, i have replaced any identifying information with xxxxx, i did put more information about the situation at the bottom and have removed that as well, am i now being too paranoid?

If you're reading these then thank you I do appreciate it.

Any advice or input however harsh gratefully received.

We're at the County Court claim stage, and we've come up with this:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXXXXX

BETWEEN:!

Premier Park Limited (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed.

The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay at XXXXXX car park on the evening of the xxxxxxxxx.



It is denied that the claimant's signage that sets out the terms was displayed in an effective manor:
1.) With no artificial lighting in the car park users of the car park are unable to observe the terms and conditions for XXX car park after sunset
2.) Reflective signs while present were not visible from the entrance or viewable from every parking space
3.) No effective signage for pedestrians leaving xxxxxx Car park



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 –
(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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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!oftruth a nullity.!

- 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.!

- 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.

- 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...''

- In summary, the Claimant's!particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant'sposition 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.

- 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.!

- 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.!


I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Every paragraph of the defence needs a number and there is a typo here:

in an effective manor:

Where is your standard point about no proprietary interest/landowner authority?

And I would remove this as it is more in their favour than yours if you go admitting that reflective signs were present (let them prove stuff like that):

Reflective signs while present were not visible from the entrance or viewable from every parking space

countdowniscool

Thanks Coupon mad,

Crikey i need to work on this some more.

i'm hoping this looks much better?

i'm not sure if 3.4 contradicts 5 (no standing or landowner authority) and i should just remove it?