Claim Form but not the driver

Crystaltips76

I'm sorry it's been a manic day in the office today, my head is all over the place.

The NTK came from Phoenix Parking Solutions on 8th January and it has £124 as the "Balance" as they called it.

The following letter from ZZPS dated 7th February then had the Parking charge as £100 on it with a £60 administration fee added on.

The letters both almost identical at a quick glance.

Redx

Sounds like zzps did the back office work and tacked on £24 for their services as agents

This wasn't paid so a debt collector was tasked to obtain the money and tacked on the standard £60 to the original default tariff of £100 making the new demand of £160

Any court claim should be for £100 plus court fees etc, typically less than £200, so say £175 on your figures above , hence the abuse of process paragraphs and the strike outs by DJ Grand and Taylor

These need adding to the defence

Crystaltips76

Redx wrote: »

Sounds like zzps did the back office work and tacked on £24 for their services as agents

This wasn't paid so a debt collector was tasked to obtain the money and tacked on the standard £60 to the original default tariff of £100 making the new demand of £160

Any court claim should be for £100 plus court fees etc, typically less than £200, so say £175 on your figures above , hence the abuse of process paragraphs and the strike outs by DJ Grand and Taylor

These need adding to the defence

Thanks Redx

I have added this paragraph to the defence:
3) 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 which states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper (and the ceiling for a parking charge, as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). 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. It is submitted that any added fees are simply numbers made up out of thin air and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in any event.

Is this ok? I'm guessing I can add more detail, for example the info about the different rulings, in the witness statement if it gets to that point?

Redx

I think I would add more to the defence, but definitely add all 7 or 8 paragraphs to the WS, do not skimp at all

If adding all of them to the defence, make them the last paragraphs before the statement of truth, which personally I would do, as a last ditch attempt for an early strike out by a clued up judge, especially adding the claim numbers and dates and the names of the judges

Plus that ntk was inflated beyond £100 which isn't allowed, so don't make the judge think it was £124 to start with, the signs won't say £124, they will say £100, so I would reword that part too to reflect that spurious charges were added from the get go

Crystaltips76

Thanks Redx - I will try to get some more added to it this afternoon.

Le_Kirk

THIS is what you want. Pay particular attention to post # 14 but also read the whole thread, reading posts by Johnersh (who is a solicitor) and adds some interesting points.

Crystaltips76

Okay, I have done a bit more work on this, adding more about the Abuse of Process and changing the order as Redx suggested. Does this look better now?

The Defendant is (Company Name) and it is admitted that the company is the registered keeper of the vehicle. There is no clear cause of action shown in the Particulars of Claim and liability for this charge, or any sum at all claimed by this Claimant, is denied for the following reasons:

1) (Company Name) 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 Defendant company has nominated the Driver and that the Claimant knew the name and address of the Driver before filing a County Claim against the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant is not liable for the claim and the Claimant has lost any right to claim from (Company Name) as keeper. This non-compliance with POFA 2012 voids any right to ‘keeper liability’.

2) The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant is the 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.

3) It is denied that a 'parking charge notice' ('PCN') was affixed to the vehicle on the material date given in the Particulars and therefore the driver was not served with a document that created any liability for any charge whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

4) Accordingly, it is denied that any contravention or breach of clearly signed/lined terms occurred, and it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge, either by signage or by a PCN.

5) Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. 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.

6) As a body corporate, (Company Name) could not possibly have been the driver of the vehicle so cannot be held liable ‘as driver’ either. Further, there is also no possibility of vicarious liability by (Company Name) to the Claimant, since there was no omission, contravention nor breach of contract by the driver.

7) Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. The signage at the entrance to the car park reads: For the use of NatWest Customers Only' which is a forbidding sign but then offers a contract to park to a non-NatWest customer which is contradictory.

8) 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.

9) 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) It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, (Company Name) is keeping a note of wasted time and costs so far in dealing with this matter, with a view to claiming the loss to the company of at least half a day's work for myself or another employee/Director, and travel/parking costs and any other expenses for attending any hearing as witness for the Defendant.

11) 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.

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) 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.

14) 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.

15) 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 and information in this defence are true and the Defendant company is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all. The employee submitting this defence works for and is authorised to submit this defence by (Company Name).

Redx

Seems a lot better, but in 12) before It is ordered, add

The judges stated

Then see if there are any other comments if you have time

Le_Kirk

Looks OK to be, providing you do as Redx states.

Crystaltips76

Thank you so much for your help in getting this completed before I head off on annual leave. I will submit my defence tomorrow and let you know how I get on.