County Court Claim

The_Deep

Nixci, you will make people cross again if you post on other peoples' threads.
If you can work out how to, post under your own name please do so. Perhaps someone more savvy than I am can tell you how to post.

I have replied to your PM but CM does not usually accept them.

I am sure that things will go your way in court, if you cannot find a place to park you cannot contract to park. lt is really that simple.

Le_Kirk

I think you can detail the aspect of attending an emergency call-out in the Witness Statement (WS), which is a narrative, i.e. what happened on the day, although maybe you can introduce it in your point 2 stating that you parked where you did due to attending an emergency and leave it at that. I like that you have ensured that you are quoting from the previous cases about abuse of process (your point 14).

Le_Kirk

The_Deep wrote: »

Nixci, you will make people cross again if you post on other peoples' threads.
If you can work out how to, post under your own name please do so. Perhaps someone more savvy than I am can tell you how to post.

I have replied to your PM but CM does not usually accept them.

I am sure that things will go your way in court, if you cannot find a place to park you cannot contract to park. lt is really that simple.

Nixci - to post in your own name just click on the New Thread button on the front page of the forum, alternatively please find your old thread and continue on it.

mercuteio

Le_Kirk wrote: »

I think you can detail the aspect of attending an emergency call-out in the Witness Statement (WS), which is a narrative, i.e. what happened on the day, although maybe you can introduce it in your point 2 stating that you parked where you did due to attending an emergency and leave it at that. I like that you have ensured that you are quoting from the previous cases about abuse of process (your point 14).

Thanks Le_Kirk. Ok, so how about:

2. The facts are that the defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration **** ***, on the date 29/01/2019 on which the alleged Parking Charge Notice was issued, and was an on-call doctor attending a medical emergency.

Additionally, I just added the following blurb into post #31 for anyone that hasn't read it already:

mercuteio wrote: »

5) I also haven't mentioned anything about the fact that I received a PCN from the same company in the same car park under very similar circumstances (medical emergency, nowhere else to park, still awaiting permit from hospital) on 6th May, and am currently receiving letters from them. Do you think this should be weaved in?

Do you think I should mention this?

Actually, having spent most of the last couple of days trying to sort this out, I actually came home last night thinking I'd finally got the defence done, only to find a single letter waiting for me . . . the Letter Before Claim from 6th May! Eurgh!

Le_Kirk

I think you need to keep the issues separate. If the second one progresses, you MAY have an opportunity to consolidate the cases. On the other hand if the second case does not catch up with the first one and you win the first one, you can claim res judicata.

mercuteio

Marvellous - thank-you! Ok, great - in that case I'm going to submit the defence with only point 2 amended as above. I think I'll take out the green section too.

If anyone else has any tips or suggestions please let me know. Otherwise I'll touch base as things progress.

Thank-you all again!

DanR22

Hey guys.. can I jump on this thread please as I cant create on at the moment.. probably because I'm on my phone? Thankyou

DanR22

Hello Keith.. can I ask/show you something through this thread please?

mercuteio

Hello everyone,

Quick update:

1) My Defence Questionnaire was received on 11th September, and I can see from the MCOL site that the case has been passed onto my local court. Still waiting to hear anything from them (should I have heard anything by now?).

2) Today, however, I have received a second County Court Claim from the same company, in the same car park, in the same circumstances! I semi-anticipated this, but thought they may have the sense not to send in another court claim whilst the other one was still ongoing. But there we are. So, with that, I just thought I'd update and let you know that my plan is to effectively copy and paste the exact same defence as for the first claim (which I've quoted below from this thread, in case you're interested). Please do let me know if this is a sensible or stupid idea for any reason that I may not have anticipated.

Presuming that no-one on this thread sees any issues with this, then I'll proceed to the Acknowledgement of Service, followed by filing my defence, and then filling in my Defence Questionnaire, before waiting to see what ensues for both cases.

Many thanks!

mercuteio wrote: »

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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

2. The facts are that the defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration **** ***, on the date 29/01/2019 on which the alleged Parking Charge Notice was issued.

3. 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.

4. 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 Defendant notes that no less than three separate companies have signage within the same space of land, each claiming that parking represents acceptance by conduct of a contractual agreement with themselves only, and therefore each contradicting the possibility of such actions forming a contractual agreement with any of the other companies displaying signage. This causes an entirely ambiguous and unclear situation in which there is no certainty as to whom any such contract could be in agreement with, and as such no contract can be construed from the Claimant’s signage under the doctrine of contra proferentem.

5. 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.

6. 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.

Costs on the claim - disproportionate, disingenuous and an abuse of process

7. 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 £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. Such a claim represents an abuse of process.

8. 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."

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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 administrative 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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, stating:
''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...''

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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

Signature


Date

Coupon-mad

2) Today, however, I have received a second County Court Claim from the same company, in the same car park, in the same circumstances! I semi-anticipated this, but thought they may have the sense not to send in another court claim whilst the other one was still ongoing. But there we are. So, with that, I just thought I'd update and let you know that my plan is to effectively copy and paste the exact same defence as for the first claim (which I've quoted below from this thread, in case you're interested). Please do let me know if this is a sensible or stupid idea for any reason that I may not have anticipated.

Good idea except add a covering email that uses the words you find about asking the court to consolidate the claims, when you search the forum for:

two claims? abuse of process

Then REPEAT that form of words at every stage till a Judge sees it and agrees. I mean at EVERY stage, every form you send in, put a covering note asking for consolidation by a Judge.