Premier Park DEFENCE for parking fine – claim form date 17/07

sunroom

Hiya to anyone reading this and a massive thank you in advance,

I will try and keep this as brief as possible, but as I cannot find anything similar to my case I would be very grateful for any support I am provided with please.

Claim form date: 17/07/2019
From: Northampton
AOS submitted online: 29/07/2019
Defence form due: 22/08/2019
Amount claimed: £192.58 (+£25 court fee & £50 legal rep)

PCN Contravention: No permit on display
Issued: Jan 2015
Observed at: 08:12:44 (issued 3 mins later)

Background:
- At the time we lived in a block of flats that had around 10 parking spaces (no visitor bays) allocated to 28 flats, accessible via a fob activated gate only
- The fob gave access to a road that went off the left to our block’s parking and straight on to the neighbouring block of flats parking which had allocated bays and 2x visitor bays
- I had been a resident of this property for approx. 18months with no prior parking fines
- The PCN was issued to the car I had used from a now ex employer’s work to travel to a meeting in Milton Keynes (a 4+ hour drive from my home) and back again, where I had arrived home late (after 11pm), feeling unwell and required the prompt use of my facilities and had to use one of two available visitor bays of the neighbouring block of flats due to our own parking spaces being full
- I had every intention of moving my car to the nearest overnight car park, which is an indirect drive a few minutes away with an approx. 5 minute walk back to my property; however due to the unrelenting nature of my sickness bug I was unable to move my car that evening and got up to move my car the next day at approx. 08:22 to find a ticket had already been issued.
- I wrote to Premier Park to appeal as explained above and confirm myself as the driver of the company owned car and this was refused and despite my name being written in capitals they have ever since corresponded with the wrong spelling (petty I know)
- I received multiple threatening bailiff letters which I ignored as directed by the forum

I acknowledged in my appeal that I would not park in this way again, due to circumstances it was a complete one off and that I felt there charges (£60 increased to £100) were not a fair representation of loss to the landowner [I acknowledge from other cases read on the forum that this is not a defence that I could use]

I have followed everything on the forum up until now (SAR etc which showed my PCN notice; the pictures taken of the car in front of a sign which stipulated the terms of the parking), but feel unsure about how to approach my defence in a strong way and therefore would be grateful for any assistance anyone could provide please?

Should I contact my MP? Any point?

Thanks in advance,

The_Slithy_Tove

What does your tenancy or lease say about parking? That will be key.

You can dispute the £92.58 they have added to the original PCN amount for a start - see the many threads now about abuse of process by demanding sums they have no right to and costs they never incurred.

Coupon-mad

Defence form due: xx/08/2019

You won't be filing in any form.

I received multiple threatening bailiff letters which I ignored as directed by the forum

No, you had debt collector letters, no bailiffs. Quite right to ignore those scammers.

I acknowledged in my appeal that I would not park in this way again, due to circumstances it was a complete one off and that I felt there charges (£60 increased to £100) were not a fair representation of loss to the landowner [I acknowledge from other cases read on the forum that this is not a defence that I could use]

No, it isn't.

I cannot find anything similar to my case

Surely it's very similar to the example of the concise defence about the key fob entry to a residential estate? Exactly what you described, already written to plagiarise.

No link given, it's one of bargepole's example defences in the NEWBIES thread.

All you'd need to add to that basic defence, is the longer wording I wrote in post #14 of beamerguy's Abuse of Process thread (PLEASE add paragraph numbers). Combine the two and add the usual point about 'no proprietary interest' AND YOUR OWN FACTS in para #2, and Bob's your uncle, you will have a decent first draft.

KeithP

sunroom wrote: »

Claim form date: 17/07/2019
From: Northampton
AOS submitted online: 29/07/2019
Defence form due: 22/08/2019

The target date for filing your Defence is sooner than that. Not much sooner, but it would be a shame to miss it.


With a Claim Issue Date of 17th July, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 19th August 2019 to file your Defence.

That's three weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.


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.

Redx

you also seem to be saying that none of the defences in this thread and the links I gave inside it are of any use ? (never mind the key fob defence listed in the NEWBIES thread by coupon-mad ?)


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6030014/claim-form-received-case-struck-out-remote-hearing


I do not believe you have done enough research, because we see these residential cases almost daily on here

sunroom

Thanks for your message. I was talking more in line with what I deemed to be extenuating circumstances regarding my illness. That’s what I wasn’t sure whether there would be any strength in the reason for my parking space choice.

I will take all of your comments on board (thanks again to everyone) and I will start to draft my defence ASAP.

sunroom

Permit only, but I didn’t have the permit on the car as I’d forgotten to take it out of my normal vehicle that I’d left at work (as I’d had to use a company car to drive to the meeting in MK). Key fob was on my house keys hence having the on me. Don’t think the permit I had applied to the visitors bay

Redx

stick to the legal arguments as to why you are not liable as a tenant on a gated estate

you are letting your illness etc cloud the legal issues

the defence is about legal issues , your WS is much further down the process so at this time nobody is really interested in the backstory

primacy of lease and other things like peaceful enjoyment etc come into play

if you appealed as a tenant with permission to park (or your lease is silent on the issue of parking) then they should have cancelled knowing that the vehicle had implied permission , one replacing another temporarily

they were greedy and just want to profit from it


a complaint to the MA should have had it cancelled ages ago

The_Deep

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.

sunroom

"Combine the two and add the usual point about 'no proprietary interest' "
I cannot find anything on this in the thread, are you able to point me in a direction where I can quote this please? I have googled and tried to understand this term but don't know how I can add this as part of my defence

sunroom

Further to the above - DRAFT DEFENCE:

Dear readers,

Here is my proposed defence. I am feeling incredibly overwhelmed as I feel that my defence is not as strong as others, despite doing my best [I have been working on this for hours and even though most of it is plagiarised I have no idea how to piece it altogether] I feel that I would be eaten alive if this were to be taken to court ☹ I am this far because I was following this forum’s advice and am really wishing I had paid the original sum owed so that I wouldn’t be in this position.

Goodness that sounds whiney! But I am here, prepared to fight, because I don’t want to make this easy for them. But I would really appreciate people going easy on me and ask for your continued help and advice on whether this is even any good or where to go from here. You are all very helpful, but I am completely out of my comfort zone and think despite the endless hours I have spent reading (and rereading) different/relevant threads I can’t make it work to suit my case because I don’t have the lease to the flat as we have not lived there for 3 years [I emailed the MA and have asked them for a copy at the time of our residence but at this time no response]:

My defence can therefore only read as follows in absence of the lease [also am I concluding twice? Don’t know whether to leave out certain paragraphs at the end of the bargepole information and just end with one]:


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

2. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to 'Parking Charge(s)' incurred on 30/01/2015. However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for these charges, in that they do not state what the terms of parking were, or in what way they are alleged to have been breached. In addition, the particulars state 'The Defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle' which indicates 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. [My claim form does not state I am the own of the vehicle only that it relates to CAR BRAND with REGISTRATION NUMBER – so do I remove this whole paragraph]

3. The Particulars refer to the material location as '[X]'. The Defendant was a resident of the neighbouring block of flats [X NAME] which shared a private drive accessible only by means of a key fob, of a type only issued to residents. Any vehicles parked therein are, therefore, de facto authorised to be there.

4. Under the terms of the Defendant's lease, a number of references are made to conditions of parking motor vehicles.

4.1. The erection of the Claimant's signage, and the purported contractual terms conveyed therein, are incapable of binding the Defendant in any way, and their existence does not constitute a legally valid variation of the terms of the lease. Accordingly, the Defendant denies having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. Further and in the alternative, the signs refer to 'Authorised Vehicles Only/Terms of parking without permission', and suggest that by parking without permission, motorists are contractually agreeing to a parking charge of £100. This is clearly a nonsense, since if there is no permission, there is no offer, and therefore no contract.

5.1. The Defendant's vehicle clearly was 'authorised' as per the lease and the Defendant relies on primacy of contract and avers that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing is in fact a matter of tortious interference, being a private nuisance to residents.

5.2. In this case the Claimant has taken over the location and runs a business as if the site were a public car park, offering terms with £100 penalty on the same basis to residents, as is on offer to the general public and trespassers. However, residents are granted a right to park/rights of way and to peaceful enjoyment, and parking terms under a new and onerous 'permit/licence' cannot be re-offered as a contract by a third party. This interferes with the terms of leases and tenancy agreements, none of which is this parking firm a party to, and neither have they bothered to check for any rights or easements that their regime will interfere with (the Claimant is put to strict proof). This causes a substantial and unreasonable interference with the Defendant's land/property, or his/her use or enjoyment of that land/property.

9. The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant's position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.

6. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £92.58 to the original £100 parking charge, for which no explanation or justification has been provided. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

7. For all or any of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss the Claim in its entirety, and to award the Defendant such costs as are allowable on the small claims track, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14. Given that the claim is based on an alleged contractual parking charge of £100 - already significantly inflated and mostly representing profit, as was found in Beavis - but the amount claimed on the claim form is inexplicably £192.58, the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

8. Given that it appears that this Claimant's conduct provides for no cause of action, and this is intentional and contumelious, the Claimant's claim must fail and the court is invited to strike it out.

8.1. In the alternative, the Court is invited, under the Judge's own discretionary case management powers, to set a preliminary hearing to examine the question of this Claimant's substantial interference with easements, rights and 'primacy of contract' of residents at this site, to put an end to not only this litigation but to send a clear message to the Claimant to case wasting the court's time by bringing beleaguered residents to court under excuse of a contractual breach that cannot lawfully exist.

9. Furthermore the costs on the claim are 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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...''

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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 that the facts stated in this Defence are true.


Name
XXX
Signature
XXX

Date
14/08/2019…”