PCN County Court Claim

Jamboree_Bag

I'm laughing.

Yes I have done the AOS on the MCOL

So cut out all that bumph and just use the template from legal Beagle for SAR request?
Tried to post a link from Legal Beagle but Newbies not permitted.

waamo

Concentrate on doing a defence. They have 30 days to comply with a SAR so waiting could see you to late to submit your defence. The information from a SAR may be useful at the witness statement stage which comes much later.

Jamboree_Bag

Thank you, that's really helpful to know.

Jamboree_Bag

Hi all - Does this look okay just amended this to hopefully fit my case -

Should I say something about the "contact of conduct"? It mentions that in the particulars of claim?

1.The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. 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.

3. It is denied that the defendant parked for longer than the maximum period permitted, the sparse details in the particulars of claim specify no time period. The documents already in the defendants’ possession sent from the claimant are contradictory regarding time periods and have not allowed a period of grace as required by an IPC accredited operator, which may constitute predatory practices.

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.

5. 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.
6. There seems to be no “entrance” to the private land as specified on the Particulars of Claim. Indeed there are metal bollards separating the claimants “sign” from what appears to be the public highway.

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.

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.

Le_Kirk

If the claimant has added spurious charges on as indicated by your defence point 8, you should search for the thread by beamerguy by using the keyword(s) Abuse of Process and pick up post # 14 on that thread, copy and paste it all into your defence after point 8 and renumber, making sure you give a number to EVERY paragraph.

1505grandad

On a duplicate thread it was stated by waamo:-

"Regulars like to see all the background ........................."

No background seems to have been posted so can you give the details of the parking event?.

Jamboree_Bag

The car was allegedly parked in on private land for delivery vehicles only that were permitted a 1 hour stay - the car was affixed with a penalty charge after 1 hour and 45 seconds.
The charge was ignored.

A NTK was sent 9 days after "contravention" which was ignored "£100 charge"

Final reminder sent 38 days later which was ignored.

Claim form business centre from VCS.....Particulars of claim are...........

For Breach of contract for breaching terms and conditions set on private land. Breach of advertised terms and conditions, namely parked for longer than max period permitted, terms and conditions were clearly displayed at entrance & prominent positions bla bla bla.
The sign was the offer and the entering of private land was the acceptance, hereby entering into a contract by conduct.
The signs detailed the t's and c's and consequences of failing to comply, defendant has failed to settle liability - The claimant wants pcn recovery, contractual costs and interest.



Cars park regularly in the area so called private land, in fact every day, without receiving PCN's
One drives along the public highway, to the right is what can only be described as a layby. This is seperated by metal bollards. On the other side of the bollards a 10ft width of ground and a building where the signs are high up on a wall.
The car parked there regularly and saw "parking attendant" on many occasions, never received any PCN's before so presumed land was local authority and not part of the "service yard" as specified.

Jamboree_Bag

If the claimant has added spurious charges on as indicated by your defence point 8, you should search for the thread by beamerguy by using the keyword(s) Abuse of Process and pick up post # 14 on that thread, copy and paste it all into your defence after point 8 and renumber, making sure you give a number to EVERY paragraph.




Thank you - I'll copy all that in too and update next week - during next day off!

Jamboree_Bag

Hi _ Please cast your expert eyes over this - to me it's a jumble & headache! Please let me know if this defence is OK thank you ...........................


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 XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, appears from the sparse evidence supplied by this Claimant, to be parked on the material date on a public road, not on “private land”.

2.1. It is denied that a 'Parking charge notice' was affixed to the car on the material date given in the Particulars. This Claimant is known to routinely affix misleading scraps of paper in a red/black envelope impersonating authority, bearing the legend 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice'. It is reasonable to conclude, from the date Notice to Keeper ('NTK') that was posted, that the hybrid note that the Claimant asserts was a 'Parking Charge Notice' was no such thing, and therefore the driver was not served with a document that created any liability for any charge whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

2.2. Accordingly, it is denied that any contravention or breach of clearly signed/lined terms occurred, and it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge, either by signage or by a PCN.

3. It is denied that the defendant parked for longer than the maximum period permitted, the sparse details in the particulars of claim specify no time period. The documents already in the defendants’ possession sent from the claimant are conflicting regarding timing and have not allowed a period of grace as required by the claimants own trade body the IPC, which constitutes a breach.

3.a The Notice to Keeper does not specify the actual period of parking to which the notice relates as required by POFA 8 (2) a. The claimants “contravention reason” on the notice to keeper states “80) PARKED FOR LONGER THAN THE PERMITTED PERIOD” but only states the “Contravention time 10.15”

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. The signage is attached to a wall and reads: 'By entering this private land you are entering into a contract with Vehicle Control Services'.

5.1. Vehicle registration XXXX had not entered past the bollards on the slip road and therefore had not entered into a contract with Vehicle Control Services.

5.2. Even if the Court is minded to consider that the car did pass that sign, the terms of the sparse and ambiguous signage make no offer available; there is no licence to park.

5.3. 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 or for trespass.

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

6.The Claimant, namely, Mr Renshaw-Smith is no stranger to having his misleading signs and meritless claims exposed by the courts. Some six years ago, he was reported as describing the court ruling damning his misleading signage in Excel v Cutts (Stockport County Court case no: 1SE02795) as ".....an embarrassment to the judicial system" reportedly describing the Judge as "not fit to serve the civil courts". And in 2012 in VCS v Ibbotson, case No 1SE09849, District Judge McIlwaine warned VCS' representative against bringing meritless claims to court, stating: ''I am dismissing your action [...] it seems to me this whole action is ill-founded. You have no right to bring this action. Moreover, on my interpretation of your Code of Practice, you are in clear breach. You have signed statements of truth which say you adhere to the Code of Practice. You do not. To sign a statement of truth when it is not correct has significant implications. I will tell you now after these proceedings I will issue an alert so you are clear. I have had this case in my court and all judges with this case and this dispute are advised to look at the terms and conditions of contract. If you continue to pursue those cases on this flawed premise, the consequences will be significant. If there is another case in the (Grimsby/Hull area) County Courts live by 4pm on Friday, you will be coming to see me and I suggest you bring a toothbrush. Am I clear?''


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 pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation.


7.1 It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or “not a PCNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 (2a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act

8.The Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 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 and it is attested that the costs on the claim are 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.

11. The standard wording for parking charge/debt recovery contracts is on the Debt Recovery Plus website - ''no recovery/no fee'', thus establishing an argument that the Claimant is breaching the indemnity principle - claiming reimbursement for a cost which has never, in fact, been incurred. This is true, whether or not they used a third party debt collector during the process.

12. 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 and there has been no legal advice or personal involvement by any solicitor in churning out this template claim.

13. 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.

14.Unlike this mendacious and greedy Claimant, ParkingEye themselves took on board the Beavis case outcome and they never add fake costs on top of the parking charge. It is indisputable that an alleged 'parking charge' penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending upon the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters, and all parking firms are very familiar with this case:

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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 earlier General Judgment or Orders of DJ Grand, who (when sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court in 2018 and 2019) has struck out several parking firm claims. 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) yet the Orders have been identical in striking out both claims without a hearing, with the Judge stating: ''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...''

20. That is not an isolated judgment striking a parking claim out for repeatedly adding sums they are not entitled to recover. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated:

''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''

21.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 untrue in terms of the added costs alleged and the statements made, in trying to justify the unjustifiable.

22. 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.

23.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.

Le_Kirk

Your points 2 & 3 do not make sense. You claim it is a public road, not private land (i.e. NOT a car park) but then you go on to say you didn't stay longer than the permitted time!! Good to see you have included the abuse of process points.