UK Car Park Management County Court Defence

specific10

Hi,

Received a county court claim as below:

"The driver of the vehicle with registration (XXXX) (the ‘vehicle’) parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the ‘Contract’) at (xxxxxxx) on the (date) thus incurring the Parking Charge (the ‘PCN’). The driver of the Vehicle agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days of issue yet failed to do so. The claimant claims the unpaid PCN from the Defendant as driver/keeper of the Vehicle. Despite demands being made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £100 for the PCN! £60.00 contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £12.07 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8.00% per annum, continuing at £0.04 per day."

A PCN was produced some twelve months ago from Uk Car Park Management as one day i forgot to leave my permit in the window of the car whilst parking. I have used and continued to use this space for years.

My company rents 2 spaces from a landlord of an office block which is across the road from us, and we rent these spaces via a management company acting on behalf of the landlord.

At the time of receiving the PCN i spoke with one of the management company to see if they could kindly ask to rescind the PCN but the representative said that they would have nothing to do with the claim and to take it up with UKCPM. From this point i chose to ignore the PCN and corresponding letters that followed regarding the claim, i understand now this was a mistake.

We have valid permits to park and i am in possession of such valid permit.

I have selected to defend the claim in its entirety and this has been registered within the MCOL site. Unfortunately after registering i then had a planned vacation so am now a little further down the line but with still a good few days or so before i need to submit my defence. I have done as much research as is humanly possible in the last week and appreciate all of the excellent advice given on this forum.

Firstly i have seen no evidence from Gladstones, but after reading through multiple posts, multiple forums, i gather my best point of attack would be the deeds of the land of where i park to dictate if i would be entitled to use my space on such an occasion with freedom to not display a permit to park.

What I'm really struggling with is that as my company 'rents' spaces off the landlord via the management company who were previously unhelpful, do i get the necessary paperwork showing the deeds relating to the property. or should i just defend saying that i would ask the claimant to provide proof that they have the contractual powers not just to issue a claim but to pursue it too such as in the case of VCS v Ibbotson.

I also have acquired a picture from google earth which has got me thinking, the car park is unfortunately no longer in operation so i would be relying on this image. The bays are poorly marked and some have the lines missing, this car park was part of an office block that is going to be pulled down hence no money was ever spent on it. Could I maybe also use this to say that as the signage from UKCPM advises of parking "wholly in a marked bay", then where is the contract if my car is not proved to be parked in a marked bay as quite clearly some bays are not marked? Have i got the correct gist of this?

From what i have read this would be my defence so far:

DEFENCE

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

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXXX, is permitted to park at LOCATION through an agreement with COMPANY NAME and the landlord via COMPANY MANAGEMENT NAME

3. 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 pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim such as in the VCS v Ibbotson case in 2012.

4. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe 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 lack of 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. The signage advises that the "YOU MUST PARK WHOLLY WITHIN A MARKED BAY". As per the evidence shot of the car park there are many flaws in the structure of these bays with poor line marking. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

7. At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages for trespass.

8. County Court transcripts supporting the Defendant's position will be adduced, and in all respects, the Beavis case is distinguished.

9. The POFA, 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. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 or £160 debt.

10. 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.


Statement of Truth:

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

Name
Signature:
Date:

If any further information could help/any other angle of defence could be considered it would be appreciated if someone could suggest?

Thanks for reading

Le_Kirk

Covers all the usual points. If you want to read a thread by beamerguy (with a post by Coupon-mad at post # 14 of that thread) which gives some points about abuse of process for adding spurious amounts, search the forum (Advanced Search) using beamerguy as the user name and Abuse of Process as your search words and change the radio button from threads to posts.

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on the Claim Form?

specific10

The issue date is july 22nd

The_Deep

Abuse of process here

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

KeithP

specific10 wrote: »

The issue date is july 22nd

specific10 wrote: »

I have selected to defend the claim in its entirety and this has been registered within the MCOL site.

With a Claim Issue Date of 22nd July, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 27th August 2019 to file your Defence.

That's ten days away. Plenty of time to produce a 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 [URL="https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread[/URL] to find out exactly what to do with it.

specific10

Thanks so much for the replies...

I have slightly ammended my defence after reading up some more:

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

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXXX, is permitted to park at LOCATION through an agreement with DEFENDANTS COMPANY NAME and MANAGEMENT COMPANY NAME who act on behalf of the the landlord of LOCATION.

3. Due to the defendant having a registered permit, for a number of years, to park at LOCATION, The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to pursue a payment by means of litigation. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim such as in the VCS v Ibbotson case in 2012.

4. At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. As the Defendant is in possession of a valid permit for VEHICLE REG to park there was no trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. The Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages for trespass.

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 signage advises that the "YOU MUST PARK WHOLLY WITHIN A MARKED BAY". There are many flaws in the structure of these bays with a lack of line marking, as can be seen on Google Earth. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

5. The POFA, 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. This erroneus claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 or £160 debt.

5.1. 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.

5.2. 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.

5.3. 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.

5.4. It is trite law that non-existent and untrue 'legal costs' are also unrecoverable. 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.

5.5. 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.

5.6. 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.

5.7. Court Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts, such as these cases, struck out in recent months without a hearing, due solely to the pretence of adding 'damages' blatantly made up out of thin air.

(a) In Claim number F0DP163T on 11th July 2019, District Judge Grand sitting at the County Court at Southampton, struck out a overly inflated (over the £100 maximum Trade Body and POFA 2012 ceiling) parking firm claim without a hearing for that reason.

(b) In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor 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. These include a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstone’s' robo-claim model) where the abuse is inherent in the business model. The Order was identical in striking out all such claims without a hearing. The judgment for these three example cases stated:

''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...''

5.8 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.

6. 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.


Statement of Truth:

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


Signature:
Date:


Does this seem ok?

Thanks for reading

Umkomaas

Follow bargepole's advice in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2. No sub para numbers, just a straight 1,2,3 ....

You have 2 x para 4s! Please proofread your posts, not leave such very basic stuff to others. It helps relieve a lot of the pressure on a very small number of volunteers trying to stem the tsunami of PPC claims.

specific10

I have just read this advice, apologies, so much information to take in. I will have another attempt tomorrow and take

specific10

*out the I formation not required

Redx

check this thread out where the OP had the landlords permission to park

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/59690186

maybe add something in along those lines, the PPC are not offering anything to you if you had permission to park , no consideration = no contract