Worried CCJ coming my way for unpaid PCN!

Starkat79

Draft defence so far if someone could please take a look at it & get back to me as soon as possible. Need to get it in by tomorrow & still don't know what to do if I can't scan it!

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

DEFENCE

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

**Add in point regarding address change & then change bullet numbering**

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to XXXXX at Chatham Maritime.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered 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.

4. 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.

5. 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. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

6. 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.

7. 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.

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.

OR

The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £72.36 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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.

9. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
Name
Signature
Date

So...
Point 2 - I had put in the name of the pub for the 'Company' but realised the claim form only says Chatham Maritime, Chatham....so do I just put that instead?

Point 5 - The last part that says "They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom." - I am going to check today whether this is stated or not & take photos so I know what to amend this point to say.

Point 8 - Which paragraph is best to use and also do I leave the 'additional sum' at £60 or include their interest which makes a total of £72.36 added on to the claim?

Thanks

beamerguy

number 8

You need to highlight this to the court as ABUSE OF PROCESS

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081

See coupon-mad's text in post #14 and include all of it

Starkat79

Thanks beamerguy. Where coupon-mad states to add paragraph numbers is that as in 8,9,10.... or all under point 8, as in 8.1, 8.2, 8.3....?

Le_Kirk

Bargepole, a legal-type poster, always recommends straight numbering without sub-paragraphs, and EVERY paragraph should have a number.

Starkat79

Thanks Le-Kirk. Anyone got an answer regarding what I asked in #42 about Point 2 - "I had put in the name of the pub for the 'Company' but realised the claim form only says Chatham Maritime, Chatham....so do I just put that instead?"

Also regarding what I wrote about point 5, I took a photo of the sign today & it states under the 2 hour maximum stay (no return for 1hr), that the pub's site customers staying for more than 2 hrs can provide their full, correct vehicle registration to a member of staff to obtain additional parking time.

Unfortunately I wasn't aware that I could give my reg to a member of staff so failed to do this!

Then it says "You must park wholly within a marked bay"....

So is it ok or not to put this whole paragraph: 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. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

Le_Kirk

There is a defence in the NEWBIE sticky about a hidden keypad, it may be more appropriate to your situation. Obviously, read, edit and proof read, don't just blindly copy and paste - just use the points relative to your issue. Regarding point 5, I would put what it says on the sign, no point introducing things than can be disproved by the claimant. Regarding the point about Chatham Marine, I would put where you were parked as presumably the claimant has indicated this on the POC.

Starkat79

I visited the same place months down the line & spotted (not straight away though) a poster saying that if you are parked in the car park & going to be over 2hrs, then to let the member of staff on reception know your reg so they can put it on the system to avoid you getting a fine. After spotting one poster I then noticed more which I had totally walked past & not paid any attention to, they are mainly black with like a hazard tape style design on them. So no keypad to input the info on yourself. Annoyingly when I spoke to the lady on reception, it turned out that if I had contacted them within 30 days of getting the first letter from UKPC, they would have done something about it - definitely kicking myself about that right now!!

Point 5 - But would you say that they have or haven't 'set out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner' by telling people visiting the pub to let a member of staff know?

All they put on the POC was "....stiplulated on the signage (the Contract') at CHATHAM MARITIME CHATHAM - ANPR - CHATHAM MARITIME CHATHAM KENT ME4 3ER, on [date] thus incurring...."

Starkat79

So here's a quick breakdown of my case which may help; parked in an ANPR car park - didn't see the sparse/high up/small font signs - went to pub restaurant and, unknown to me at the time, overstayed the maximum of 2hrs given - got letters from UKPC, DRP, Gladstones and ignored all as advised on here - didn't hear anything for 6 months - missed appealing the LBC's due to moving house & not receiving letters till was too late - therefore ended up with CC Claim, which again received late & almost missed acknowledging - did AOS 14th Aug which was accepted.

Defence due in TODAY, please can somebody help me? I think (hoping!) that I've pretty much got in it what's needed from advice given and trawling the various threads & examples, just may need some tweaking plus still awaiting answers to a couple of things I asked above, which I have now starred below. Here is my draft so far:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

DEFENCE

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

2. The Defendant has since moved house and therefore the only address for service is XXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX, XXXXXXX.
**Do I add anything here about that's why I didn't receive LBC's or is that irrelevant?**

3. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to Ship & Trades at Chatham Maritime.
**Or just Chatham Maritime, Chatham as per the POC (please see my note #48)??**

4. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered 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.

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. 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. They merely state that vehicles must be parked wholly within a marked bay and that Ship & Trades site customers staying for more than 2 hrs can provide their full, correct vehicle registration to a member of staff to obtain additional parking time.
**Again please see #48 where I asked about point 5 (please note; number changed now due to adding in the point about my address). Also is it correct for me to state what it says on their signs regarding customers providing reg to staff and should I add anything else to the end of the paragraph?**

7. 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 are 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.

8. 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 and disingenuous

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. 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.

19. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date