LEGAL Claim, HELP Please.

Redx

I wont be pasting any links

its definitely in post #2 on my laptop

read the 3rd and 4th links in this section

Here are some cases won or in progress:

if you are using a phone , that is why you arent seeing it, use a laptop and try again

to be clear

post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread, 3rd thread down from the top of this forum

somoneXYZ

Johnersh: The sign had two different things:
1) call on this number and pay £6 for whole day
2) In the small print the another term was mentioned, which was setting the time limit I have to buy parking in. According to that term in small font: I had only 15mins to buy parking otherwise I leave the car park. I did not read that term. I was making the efforts to follow the first one.

[Deleted User]

Noted. Thanks for clarifying. However, if I couldn't appreciate that distinction from a quick review, a busy judge may not.

Revisit the Defence, taking on board some of the other feedback too. Certainly I'd consider para 7 carefully. You admit confusion without making the best point - you've already paid.

Is C seriously saying you incur a penalty of £100 or more after 15 mins, but they'll still happily take payments by phone, knowing they already Intend to penalise the driver attempting to pay a full daily rate?

This may be one of those cases that's easier to defend naming yourself as driver because C's position if I understand it correctly is so unconscionable. You must decide and do of course taking soundings from others before committing to your final case...

Redx

I agree, it's either hide behind pofa or use a driver led , witness led defence

If the driver was revealed in the first appeal or popla appeal, then use a driver/witness defence, but from a fully paid up frustration of contract legal standpoint

No point complaining about signs if you tried to comply over a long initial period after parking, but do query their complications and small print

The WS can elaborate on the facts of the case later, as in expand the WS above at a later time

somoneXYZ

Hi All, updated the statement. Please review. Thanks

In the County Court Claim No: XXXXXXX
Between
UKCPS Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The defendant made all reasonable effort and action to make payment and this payment was processed via a telephone call with the claimant to confirm payment for the duration of stay.

3. The defendant has reason to believe the claimant’s payment processing systems had a technical fault which resulted in the defendant not receiving the necessary communication from the claimant. The defendant strongly believes this is the cause of any alleged delay in payment reaching the claimant. The defendant is in receipt of 3rd party evidence to uphold this statement.

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 term in question, on the Claimant's signage, is displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, of significantly smaller font size to other information of relevance resulting in opportunity for mis-information to a lay-person, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. These points contribute to adding unnecessary confusion for the claimant for the reason of irregularity in the signage layout, print and clarity. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

5. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

6. 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 £85, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
The Defendant trusts that the presiding Judge will recognise this wholly unreasonable conduct as a gross abuse of process. It was held in the Supreme Court in Beavis (where £85 was claimed, and no more) that a private parking charge already includes a very significant and high percentage in profit and more than covers the costs of running an automated regime of template letters. Thus, there can be no 'costs' to pile on top of any parking charge claim.

7. In addition to the original penalty, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported legal costs of £50, for which C have not provided an explanation or justification. The added 'legal' cost appears to be an artificial figure, which represents a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules and achieve double recovery. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA, a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent by legally qualified staff on actually preparing the claim and/or the cost of obtaining advice for that specific claim, in a legal capacity.

8. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

somoneXYZ

Anyone please any advice about above defence?

The_Deep

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so consider complaining 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.