ZZPS, QDR Solicitors

Jdok83

Hi guys

Driver is in the process of compiling a defence for county court hearing. Contravention details. Over staying 1 hour permitted parking allowance. Driver had used gym facilities under easy gym management and suggests they may have incorrectly inputted car registration leading to parking infringement. Driver has scoured the newbie thread in the defence templates but can't find anything specific to this type of contravention. Car park operates APNR and letters received have so far come from ZZPS and QDR solicitors and now the county court.

Driver would appreciate any quick response as time is of the essence

Many thanks

waamo

Are you sure it's not the keeper who wants help rather than the driver? Has the driver been identified to the ppc?

What is the issue date on the claim form?

Jdok83

Thanks for replying

All correspondence is addressed to the name of the vehicle owner. Not sure if this means the driver is identified.

waamo

Jdok83 wrote: »

Thanks for replying

All correspondence is addressed to the name of the vehicle owner. Not sure if this means the driver is identified.

It isn't addressed to the owner, they don't know who that is. It's addressed to the registered keeper who may, or may not be, the owner.

If you haven't told them who was driving they can't know. Firstly examine the paperwork. See if they meet the strict criteria laid out in POFA to hold the keeper liable.

Redx

Jdok83 wrote: »

Thanks for replying

All correspondence is addressed to the name of the vehicle owner. Not sure if this means the driver is identified.

There is no database of owners

The V5C is in the name of the registered keeper, even if Toyota finance is the true owner (or Barclays Bank)

A driver is only identified if some fool tells them who it was

waamo

This is CEL isn't it? Just look for a recent CEL defence. They tend to discontinue at the last minute if they see a good defence.

Jdok83

Yes it is, thank you. I am very over my head with all this so appreciate all the help. I have found a defence on one of the threads to use as an outline for my own case. I'll reword it to make it more relevant. Is there a thread for proof reading the defence outline or shall i post it on this thread?

beamerguy

Jdok83 wrote: »

Yes it is, thank you. I am very over my head with all this so appreciate all the help. I have found a defence on one of the threads to use as an outline for my own case. I'll reword it to make it more relevant. Is there a thread for proof reading the defence outline or shall i post it on this thread?

Ok, best write what you think is applicable, it's like writing a story

Assume QDR have added a fake £60 to their claim. If they have, you will find the text required in the Abuse of Process thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

PLEASE READ POST #14 ON THIS THREAD BY COUPON-MAD and use it in it's entirety
QDR by the way are a low level legal owned by the infamous Wright Hassall solicitors who made a complete pigs ear in the parking industry a while back

waamo

Jdok83 wrote: »

Yes it is, thank you. I am very over my head with all this so appreciate all the help. I have found a defence on one of the threads to use as an outline for my own case. I'll reword it to make it more relevant. Is there a thread for proof reading the defence outline or shall i post it on this thread?

Always stick to one thread. One case one thread. It makes life easier for everybody.

Jdok83

Hi guys

I have found a thread with defence against CEL. All the help so far I am so grateful for. I am still getting very lost with some of the acronyms and legislation. Also is my case in court only against CEL or CEL and QDR solicitors, and is this the same hearing if so? I'll copy and paste the defence below if any one would be so kind as to tell me what to amend. It is worth noting that the car park now operates under UKPC, so all photos of the signage I have are not relevant to this case.

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

2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The particulars of the claim, state the legal basis is brought against the Defendant for ‘breach of terms of parking’ by the driver. 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 when parking at XXXX

2.1. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £60 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')' or £100 if not paid within 28 days from the PCN notice.

3. The Defendant 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 the Claimant’s Parking Charge Notice and/or Notice to Keeper failed to comply with the statutory wording and/or deadlines set by the POFA. Any non-compliance voids any right to ‘keeper liability’.

5. Futhermore the claimant has confirmed that they are not relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and pursuing me as the “Registered Keeper”, liability can not be transferred to the “Registered Keeper” and they can only pursue the “Driver”, as the driver has not been identified there should be no grounds to purse me as the “Registered Keeper”, and would suggest that this case is withdrawn with immediate effect.

6. 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.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land under the correct address, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

8. 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.

9. 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. 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 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.

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 by Judge Tailor and DJ Grand was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing and stating that: ''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 confirm that the contents of this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

KeithP

You seem to have missed waamo's question:

waamo wrote: »

What is the issue date on the claim form?

Also, did your Claim Form come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?


As has previously been said, you need to be clear about the different roles the driver and the keeper play in this game.

It was the driver that parked the car. It was the keeper that received the Notice to Keeper through the post. Unless the driver's identity has been given away, then the County Court Claim Form will have been addressed to the keeper.

You need to edit your posts to make these points clear.

This is not just pedantry. The parking companies trawl this forum just waiting for people to trip themselves up, and can try to use your posts against you.