UKPPO Court Claim Form

Stampson

Hi All,

Any help much appreciated.

I am the registered keeper of a car, which received a parking charge notice whilst parked in a residential gated car park (key fob and code) of a flat known to the person who was driving the car. The parking bays are unallocated.

Upon receiving a NTK in the post the registered keeper appealed via email to UKPPO asking for more details about the circumstances of the claim. They were informed that the appeal window had expired and therefore no further information would be given.

The registered keeper has since received regular correspondence from various debt collection agencies/ solicitors, all of which have been ignored.

A letter before claim was also received and no action was taken as it was not recognised as a genuine letter before claim.

A claim form from court has now been received from Northampton and the registered keeper has done the AOS.

Redacted copies of all correspondence can be found here numbered in order of receipt:

drive.google.com/open?id=1nQps_TFCpPBSQRWKpXgQpLcvgHN8pKRe

Thanks,
Stampson

Le_Kirk

Have you written a defence? Now is the time to look at the NEWBIE sticky post # 2 and some of the 17 pre-written defence examples there. If you post the issue date of the claim form, KeithP will be along to advise you of your deadlines plus some other useful information.

Stampson

Thanks Le_Kirk, I've not written a defence yet but i've been looking at the Bargepole template about residential parking. I'm waiting for the resident to send me a copy of their lease to confirm if there is any provision for guest parking.

The issue date of the claim form is 11 Oct 2019.

Thanks in advance!

The_Deep

Have you read this

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html

[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.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

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

KeithP

Stampson wrote: »

The issue date of the claim form is 11 Oct 2019.

With a Claim Issue Date of 11th October, and having done the Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 13th November 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks 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 could 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 the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Stampson

Thanks for the info KeithP.

From looking at the N1 Claim form, I can't see any information about how the terms of parking were breached? It says a parking charge notice was issued but doesn't give a reason. Hard to argue against when its not clear what has been breached.

Is there a requirement for the claimant to indicate if they are pursuing the defendant as RK or Driver? Does it make a difference?

Umkomaas

From looking at the N1 Claim form, I can't see any information about how the terms of parking were breached? It says a parking charge notice was issued but doesn't give a reason. Hard to argue against when its not clear what has been breached.

Poor/inadequate Particulars of Claim (PoC) should be raised in your defence. Unless you know what the claim is for, you cannot defend it comprehensively. It’s not a showstopper for you, but the Judge might order the PPC to supply fuller information. They have, occasionally, struck out poorly presented PoC, but it’s not something to rely on.

Is there a requirement for the claimant to indicate if they are pursuing the defendant as RK or Driver? Does it make a difference?

Not specifically, but again you could raise it as part of poor PoC argument. If the NtK was fully PoFA compliant, which one the PoC is pursuing is rather moot - the keeper carries the liability.

Stampson

Hi,
I've drafted my defence, if anyone could review and let me know if its ok or further additions?

DEFENCE
Preliminary

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

2. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to 'Parking Charge Notice' issued on [DATE]. However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for these charges, in that they do not state what the terms of parking were, or in what way they are alleged to have been breached. For example, whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract'. In addition, the particulars do not state if the claim is being made from the defendant as the driver/keeper of the vehicle, which indicates 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.

3. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims.

4. I believe 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. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

5. I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

Background
6. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with [provider] with 2 (two) named drivers permitted to use it.

7. It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]. The vehicle was parked there by invitation from the tenant residing at this address at the material time.

8. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
8.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
8.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
8.2.1. there was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
8.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

8.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
6. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.
7. The car parking area contains a general area for residents who do not have an allocated space. Entry to the parking is by means of a key fob or key code, of a type only issued to residents. Any vehicles parked therein are, therefore, de facto authorised to be there.
8. There are no terms within the lease requiring vehicles to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of same.

9. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

10. The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant's position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances. Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.
11. Further and in the alternative, the signs refer to 'No Unauthorised parking', and suggest that by parking without permission, motorists are contractually agreeing to a parking charge of £100. This is clearly a nonsense, since if there is no permission, there is no offer, and therefore no contract.
12. Accordingly it is denied that:
12.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
12.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
12.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
13. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £60 to the original £100 parking charge, for which no explanation or justification has been provided. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

Le_Kirk

Defences are written in the Third Person, therefore no "I" but "the Defendant."

Redx

Also , a SAR should have been sent to their DPO to get all data about the defendant and their vehicle, please confirm it's been done , or get it done asap

Attach a copy of the claim form and a copy of the V5C as proof of I D under the GDPR law

Stampson

Thanks! updated to be all in first person

DEFENCE
Preliminary

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

2. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to 'Parking Charge Notice' issued on [DATE]. However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for these charges, in that they do not state what the terms of parking were, or in what way they are alleged to have been breached. For example, whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract'. In addition, the particulars do not state if the claim is being made from the defendant as the driver/keeper of the vehicle, which indicates 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.

3. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.

4. The Defendant believes 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 my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

5. The Defendant suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

Background

6. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with [provider] with 2 (two) named drivers permitted to use it.

7. It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]. The vehicle was parked there by invitation from the tenant residing at this address at the material time.

8. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
8.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
8.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
8.2.1. there was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
8.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

8.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

6. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.

7. The car parking area contains a general area for residents who do not have an allocated space. Entry to the parking is by means of a key fob or key code, of a type only issued to residents. Any vehicles parked therein are, therefore, de facto authorised to be there.

8. There are no terms within the lease requiring vehicles to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of same.

9. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

10. The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant's position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances. Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.

11. Further and in the alternative, the signs refer to 'No Unauthorised parking', and suggest that by parking without permission, motorists are contractually agreeing to a parking charge of £100. This is clearly a nonsense, since if there is no permission, there is no offer, and therefore no contract.

12. Accordingly it is denied that:
12.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
12.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
12.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

13. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £60 to the original £100 parking charge, for which no explanation or justification has been provided. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

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