Help reviewing my defence

Coupon-mad

If the PCN was for not displaying a permit then you are viewing what Castle said from completely the wrong angle and his point is a sucker punch to the PPC's claim!

Lily091213

The PCN was for "no parking on roadways or access roads".

The_Deep

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The signs appear to leave much to be desired. Many judges might find them insufficiently clear to form a contract, read this;[/FONT]

h[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]ttps://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5972164[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5957364/first-parking-eye-appeal-unsuccessful[/FONT]

also, they appear to be claiming a lot more than allowed by law.

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

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten of these tickets are scams so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra work.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.[/FONT][/FONT]

Lily091213

I've updated my defence, can people review it and see what they think?

1. 1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the driver's alleged breach of contract, which is denied. It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant a punitive £100 'parking charge notice' (PCN) for the lawful conduct described below.

2. The facts of the matter are that the Defendant is an employee at the COMPANY XXXXXXX, and holds a valid parking permit for COMPANY car parking. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim is located amongst those forming a much larger COMPANY car park (for which COMPANY parking permits are valid). Given this lack of clarity regarding how or where a COMPANY employee with a parking permit is, or is not, allowed to park in this car park, and what locations form part of "roadways" as mentioned by the parking sign, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem principle.

3. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct. The detailed contractual terms are impossible to read from the road, especially from my parking position and any approach to my parking position. This is further evidenced by the terms being impossible to read even on zoomed in pictures I was subsequently sent!

4. 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 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.

5. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 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.

6. 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.

Statement of Truth:

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

Lily091213

I've seen people sending huge defences, and mine feels pretty small. Am I missing anything important?

Le_Kirk

You could add the ABUSE of PROCESS section, which will support your point 5. Search the forum using beamerguy as User Name and Abuse of Process as keyword(s) changing radio button form threads to posts.

Lily091213

Would people mind reviewing my updated defence and giving any feedback they have?

Thanks in advance.

---

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the driver's alleged breach of contract, which is denied. It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant a punitive £100 'parking charge notice' (PCN) for the lawful conduct described below.

2. The facts of the matter are that the Defendant is an employee at the COMPANY XXXXXXX, and holds a valid parking permit for COMPANY car parking. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim is located amongst those forming a much larger COMPANY car park (for which COMPANY parking permits are valid). Given this lack of clarity regarding how or where a COMPANY employee with a parking permit is, or is not, allowed to park in this car park, and what locations form part of "roadways" as mentioned by the parking sign, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem principle.

3. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct. The detailed contractual terms are impossible to read from the road, especially from my parking position and any approach to my parking position. This is further evidenced by the terms being impossible to read even on zoomed in pictures I was subsequently sent!

4. 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 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.

5. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 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.

Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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...''

13. 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.''

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

Statement of Truth:

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

---

1505grandad

Defence is written in the third person i.e. The Defendant - no"I", "me", "my" etc

Lily091213

OK great, I'll tweak point 3 and the Statement of Truth.

Is there any other feedback? I'm hoping to send this over the next day or two.

Lily091213

Do people feel it might be a bit too long now or is it all useful?