UK Car Park Management County Court Defence

specific10

Thanks again for the messages, i will probably need to file this today as i now need to head away on business this week So given the messages and after reading further this morning please see my further attempt at the defence. One other thing i forgot to mention is that Gladstones have previously text me for a reminder, i have never at any stage released my phone number, can they obtain people phone numbers?

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 Particulars of Claim lack specificity. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. The Defendant's vehicle clearly was 'authorised' as per the lease and the Defendant relies on primacy of contract and avers that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing is in fact a matter of tortious interference.

6. 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.

7. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage at LOCATION sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. There is no offer to park so the defendant has not entered into any contract with the Claimant. The signage also advises that "YOU MUST PARK WHOLLY WITHIN A MARKED BAY". There are many flaws in the structure of these bays with a lack of line marking. It is, therefore, strictly denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

8. 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. 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 conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

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.

tmorello

How do I start my own thread ? I can figure this platform out, I have received the same letter and need clarity on a fair few things first before I decide what I’m going to do. Any help would be appreciated

Redx

Go to the top left of the forum and click the red new thread button, it's that easy

Redx

I would add no consideration equals no contract to one of the permission paragraphs

I would add some details about abuse of process including judges Grand and Taylor to the spurious charges section near the bottom, then renumber accordingly

specific10

Hi, thanks again for the replies, a little family meant i was unable to look into my defence more as hoped yesterday and i am just about to leave for business this week and expect to have very limited access, but still plenty of time to submit (just dont want to leave it until the last minute especially with the bank holiday. So i have brushed through again, would there be any issues with the below? My main point is that i have a valid agreement to park (although i was not displaying my permit on a one off basis), also the signs do not form a contract between myself and the PPC, Finally the claim is disproportionate. I really appreciate the advice given from everyone!

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of VEHICLE REG on DATE. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the un-evidenced allegations in the Particulars.

3. The facts are that the vehicle, VEHICLE REG, was entitled to park at LOCATION on DATE through an agreement with the landlord of LOCATION and The Defendants place of work, COMPANY NAME, who lease car parking spaces for their office suite.

4. The Defendant relies on primacy of contract and avers that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing is in fact a matter of tortious interference. At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by trespass. As the Defendant is in possession of a valid agreement 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.

5. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that The Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on the land of LOCATION in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, The Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant refers to VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED (CLAIMANT) Vs MR R IBBOTSON (DEFENDANT) case on 16th May 2012 and also PACE (CLAIMANT) vs MR [N. REDACTED] (DEFENDANT) on 16th September 2016 where in both these cases it was found The Claimants lacked the authority to issue such charges.

6. Further and in the alternative, as The Claimant is relying on the basis of the signage to create a contract, it is denied that The Claimant's signage at LOCATION sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding a contract to any reasonable person reading them. There is no offer to park on the signage and as The Defendant already has an agreement to park from the Landlord, The Claimant has no right to rely on a contract for which any sum can be claimed for. The signage also advises that "YOU MUST PARK WHOLLY WITHIN A MARKED BAY". There are many flaws in the structure of these bays with a lack of line marking, or no marking. It is, therefore, strictly denied that The Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract for which they can pursue any claim for.

7. 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 debt. 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 conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed dishonest in terms of the added costs alleged. The Defendant refers to two cases very recently where these claims for a parking charge have been set aside from the outset due to these inflated claims, Claim # F0DP201T from District Judge Taylor, Southampton Court, 10th June 2019 and Claim # F0DP163T from District Judge Grand, Southampton Court, 1st July 2019.

9. The Claimant’s solicitors, Gladstones Solicitors Limited, are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details and not checking for a true cause of action.

10. The term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to the significant detriment of the unrepresented Defendant.

11. 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.

I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.

Redx

Maybe it's me but I still cannot see something that mentions that no consideration = no contract, they offer you nothing because you had permission to park

I did tell you this in post 15

Le_Kirk

Re your point 7, they weren't just set aside they were STRUCK OUT! One was Southampton DJ Taylor and the other was DJ Grand, Newport IOW.

Coupon-mad

Remove #9 and #10 as they add nothing.

Remove the mention of VCS v Ibbotson, too, just use PACE v Noor only:

The Defendant refers to VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED (CLAIMANT) Vs MR R IBBOTSON (DEFENDANT) case on 16th May 2012

specific10

Thanks again for the replies, i have just signed and sent the defence by email as advised. The pdf is a bit grainy though, is there any reason not to submit the defence also by the MCOL site?

Le_Kirk

specific10 wrote: »

....... is there any reason not to submit the defence also by the MCOL site?

Yes, trying to put your defence into the box provided on MCOL, destroys the formatting.