County Court Claim Form Received

Coupon-mad

Premier Park Ltd have just confirmed, over the phone, that my ticket expired at 15:20 and the Patrol issued the PCN at 16:43 - clearly a lot longer than the 15-20 mins I vaguely remembered

And you asked them to email you that evidence that you were parked over an hour past expiry?

kingofsting

Coupon-mad wrote: »

And you asked them to email you that evidence that you were parked over an hour past expiry?

No - they advised me over the phone, i specifically asked them what time my ticket expired and what time the patrol issued the PCN? They haven't emailed anything to me - should I have?

I did ask if they'd received my SAR and they confirmed yes but they weren't able to confirm when it will be fulfilled, only that it will be done within 30 days of receipt. They also confirmed receipt of the letter from my MP but not if they were going to respond.

nosferatu1001

Well what do you htink!
do you want
a) Actual documents
or
b) Their say so

I mean, one of them would be more convincing than thte other...

kingofsting

I believe my best defence is to focus three things. 1. there's no evidence of who was driving vehicle, 2. the signage being unclear/difficult to read, and 3. there's an additional fake charge of £60 added by BW Legal...

Draft defence

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

PREMIER PARKING LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. 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 **** *** of which the Defendant was the registered keeper, was parked on the material date at ***** ****, where a valid parking ticket was purchased.

3. The Particulars of Claim state the PCN relates to VOLKSWAGON under the registration **** *** assuming the Defendant was the registered keeper and 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.

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 £100.00 The claim includes an additional £60.00, for ‘Contractual costs pursuant to PCN Terms and Conditions’ which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

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

1505grandad

How is the claimant's name stated on the Court docs?.

Para 3 states:-

"assuming the Defendant was the registered keeper and 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"

should it be "rk and/OR the driver" - otherwise no menu choice.

After para 8 the Abuse of Process paras from the thread by beamerguy (post #14) should be inserted - duly numbered - see below:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

Coupon-mad

PREMIER PARKING LTD (Claimant)

Yawn..yet again! HOW DOES THIS KEEP HAPPENING? There is no such company.

kingofsting

PREMIER PARK LIMITED (apologies)

Coupon-mad

You need a real eye for detail when handling a court claim and your submissions must be triple checked and spot on - claim number, claimant's name, details you copy from another defence (always put right stuff that isn't correct for your case).

I think you need a bit more here, talking about the allegation as you understand it, or just saying you have seen no evidence of the alleged contravention, if any:

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration **** *** of which the Defendant was the registered keeper, was parked on the material date at ***** ****, where a valid parking ticket was purchased.

kingofsting

Updated Defence below: Thanks for the feedback so far; I've added more details about the allegation based on what i was advised over the phone by Premier Park. I've also added the Abuse of process paragraphs as advised.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

PREMIER PARK LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. 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 **** *** of which the Defendant was the registered keeper, was parked on the material date at ***** ****, where a valid parking ticket was purchased. The defendant, who has seen no actual evidence of the alleged contravention, was advised verbally by the Claimant that a purchased ticket had expired at 15:20 on the material date, and claims a Parking Charge Notice (PCN was issued by ‘Patrol’ at 16:43 on the same date.

3. The Particulars of Claim state the PCN relates to VOLKSWAGON under the registration **** *** assuming the Defendant was the registered keeper and the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action. 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.

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 it is not possible for a driver to stop and read the terms and conditions before entering the car park. 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. Abuse of Process

8.1 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 £100.00 The claim includes an additional £60.00, for ‘Contractual costs pursuant to PCN Terms and Conditions’ which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

8.2 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.

8.3 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.

8.4 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.

8.5 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. 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.

8.6 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.

8.7 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.

8.8 Many informed 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 Gladstones' robo-claim model) where the abuse is inherent in the business model.

8.9 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...''

8.10 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.

8.11 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.

8.12 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.

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. The Defendant invites the court to dismiss 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

1505grandad

The Abuse of Process thread post #14 does not appear to have been fully c & p in the above which would have also included the latest Caernarfon case - para #14 is headed:-

"Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous"

paras should be numbered 8, 9, 10 etc.

Para 3 - still no menu choice:-

"assuming the Defendant was the registered keeper and 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."