Claim Form from Gladtones re Contractual PCN from G24

sensahuma

Dear amazing samaritans + experts,

A country court claim has been raised by Gladstones solicitors on behalf of G24 Limited in relation to a Contractual PCN. The defendant has read useful threads (incl newbies thread). The AOS for the claim on moneyclaim.go.uk was completed (it also has been received by the court as per updates on the website).

Claim issue date: 07 Oct 19, which implies AOS to be done by 26/10, and the defence to be submitted by 09/11. Does that sound right?

****************************
Claim details:
"[The driver of the vehicle with registration ABCD (the 'Vehicle') parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage ('the contract') at Store:XXX, AAA BBBB CCC, Postcode, on XX/XX/2018 thus incurring the parking charge (the 'PCN'). The PCN was not paid within 28 days of issue. The Claimant claims the unpaid PCN from the defendant as the driver/keeper of the vehicle. Despite demands being made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. The claimant claims £100 for the PCN, £60 contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and the PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £XX pursuant to s69 of the county courts act 1984 at 8% per annum continuing at £0.04 per day."
****************************

Story/background as follows:

The defendant visited this store for shopping in summer 2018; the Office outlet had a rooftop parking, free for customers of the store (The defendant later found out that parking was free for 60 mins). The defendant shopped inside the store, items were bought which can be evidenced by credit card statement (no shopping receipt available anymore). As per the camera evidence provided with the Contractual PCN, it is alleged that the defendant overstayed the parking by XX minutes (i.e. a number between 10 and 15 mins, 10 < XX < 15 mins)

Following events transpired after the alleged breach of contract:
1. There was no notice/ticket stuck on the car.

2. The defendant received a contractual PCN from G24 on the basis of the following:
"Term Breached: Exceeding the max duration of stay permitted at Store:XXX, AAA BBBB CCC, Postcode"
"Term applicable: That a sum ("the Parking Charge") of £100 is payable"

3. On receving the first notice the defendant went to the store, spoke to the store manager. After seeing the store receipt, the store manager made a photocopy of the PCN notice and advised that although the parking was managed by another company (presumably by G24 and not by Store:XXX), they would try to get the charge cancelled, but added a caveat that there's no guarantee.
During this visit to the store the defendant looked around and saw the parking banner with conditions, but recollects it was not something obvious that one would normally see while going into the store after parking their vehicles; moreover it was common knowledge that the store offered free parking to its customers.

4. After few weeks the defendant received another notice from G24 termed 'Final notice'. The defendant assumed that since the issue had already been brought to the notice of the store manager, this letter could be ignored and that eventually the case would get closed by backoffice.

5. Post the events mentioned above, the defendant does not recollect what other comms were received regarding this issue, i.e. perhaps there was a letter or two before claims from solicitors. Also, worth noting that the Store:XXX went into administration and the store had closed so there was no way for the defendant to contact the store staff again.

6. The defendant receives Claim Form received from Gladstone Solicitors with issue data as 07/10/19.

**************************************************************************************************************************
Queries:

1) When requesting SAR, G24 offered posting the original and final notice to defendant's address. These are in possession of the defendant who can share scanned copies with relevant redaction. The notices sent by G24 have pictures of defedant's car entering and exiting the parking, but there is no picture of parking signage. It's through these notices that the defendant found out the overstay was between 10 and 15 mins.
Ques: Would the experts like the defendant to upload the scanned documents?

2) The defendant plans to produce a draft defence based on the following two threads (this will be shared on the forum for review/feedback):

Thread by a user called: Palec with thread title: Letter of claim from bwlegal; logged on 4th Aug 18 at 1:13 AM .
and
Thread by a user called: neoneel with thread title: UK Car Park Management / Gladstones - County Court Business Centre Defence; logged on 31st Oct 19 at 12:20 AM.

Ques: Would the experts agree that the above two threads are best ones to use for writing a draft defence?
Also, the (Page-7) of the first thread (Post#121) has a mention of "grace periods"; does that apply as a strong point for this defence?

Kindly help.

KeithP

sensahuma wrote: »

Claim issue date: 07 Oct 19, which implies AOS to be done by 26/10, and the defence to be submitted by 09/11. Does that sound right?

That does sound right, except that 9th November is a Saturday so you have until 4pm on the next working day to file your Defence.

Did you file an Acknowledgment of Service before 26th October?

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th October, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 11th November 2019 to file your Defence.

That's a week 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.

sensahuma

Thanks.
AOS was done on 26/10, not before 26th.


As per moneyclaim.co.uk,

Acknowledgment of service was submitted on 26/10/2019
Acknowledgment of service was received on 28/10/2019


Hope that sounds fine?

KeithP

sensahuma wrote: »

Thanks.
AOS was done on 26/10, not before 26th.


As per moneyclaim.co.uk,

Acknowledgment of service was submitted on 26/10/2019
Acknowledgment of service was received on 28/10/2019


Hope that sounds fine?

Yes it does sound fine, but why did you leave it so late?
From 4pm on 26th October the Claimant was free to seek a Default Judgment against you.

Anyway, you've passed that point now.
Next deadline: 4pm on Monday 11th November 2019.
Do not miss that.

sensahuma

I have constructed the following defence; request to please review and provide feedback.

Should points - 7, 8 and 9 be retained? Are they relevant here?


********************



[FONT=&quot]IN THE COUNTY COURT CLAIM NO: xxxxxx [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]BETWEEN:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]G24 Limited (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxx (Defendant)

DEFENCE[/FONT]

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

2. The facts of the case are as follows:

2.1 The defendant visited this store on dd/mm/2018 for shopping; the store had a rooftop parking, FREE for all customers of the store. The defendant later found out (i.e. after receiving the PCN) that the parking for customers was free for 60 mins).

2.2 After having shopped at the store (which can be evidenced by a store related transaction on credit card statement), the defendant drove away from the store premises as normal. There was no notice/PCN/ticket issued.

2.3 Subsequently on (dd/mm/yy), the claimant issued a £100 ‘Contractual PCN’. As evidence, blurry photographic evidence of the car entering and exiting the store premises was provided as per which it is alleged that the defendant exceed the maximum duration of stay permitted by 12 minutes.

2.4 On receiving the first notice (i.e. PCN) by post, the defendant went back to the store and discussed the matter with the store manager. After verifying the shopping receipt, the store manager made a photocopy of the receipt and the PCN notice in order to get the PCN cancelled by contacting the third party ‘G24 Ltd.’. The said third party G24 Ltd., also the claimant in this matter, was responsible for managing the store’s parking area.

2.5 Soon after the above events the store went into administration and hence was closed down. This meant that even though the claimant harassed the defendant with penalty charge reminders, there was no way for the defendant to contact the store staff to resolve the matter.

2.6 After more than a year, the defendant received a Claim Form from Gladstone Solicitors with an issue data: dd/mm/19.

3. The Particulars of the claim state that the Defendant XXXX, as the driver of the vehicle: ABXX YYY allegedly parked in breach of conditions of the ‘Contract’ at the said location. 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. The defendant puts the claimant to strict proof to show that in the absence of any parking meters or pay stations, there was enough clear signage to show the store parking was chargeable to patrons of the store and that there was ANPR surveillance being conducted.


5. 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 entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

6. 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.

7. As no windscreen ticket PCN was issued and the communication to the keeper was done insufficiently, the statutory notification duties per the BPA Code of Practice were not followed by the claimant which makes this claim invalid.

8. The allegation appears to be based on a parking charge notice ('PCN') that was prematurely issued based on overstay by just twelve minutes (over free parking for first 60 mins), breaching the mandatory 'grace period'. The Claimant is put to strict proof of any breach and of their decision-making in deciding to issue a PCN and why, as well as the reasoning behind an unconscionable £100 charge, rather than the few pounds tariff, if it is their case that this sum went unpaid, which is denied. The fact is, this PCN was issued in breach of the Claimant's Trade Body Code of Practice ('CoP') on 'Grace Periods'.

9. The June 2013 British Parking Association ('BPA') CoP, which said:
Grace Periods:13.4 ''You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.''

9.1. It is reasonable to conclude that a grace period not less than 15 minutes was in the contemplation of the BPA, given that later in the CoP in the section about NI (where clamping was still legal) the BPA state: ''Vehicles whose drivers have paid legitimately for parking but have overstayed the ‘paid-for’ time, and are not committing any other breach of the regulations, may not be immobilised unless they have stayed beyond a reasonable ‘grace period’. The grace period should be at least 15 minutes beyond the time their permitted parking period expired.''

9.1.1. Whilst that section is about clamping grace periods, this Claimant is an ex-clamper firm who would be used to the relevant period of grace imposed by the BPA and SIA up until 2012, and there can be no reason to think that 'at least 15 minutes' would not also be the norm to apply as a reasonable period of grace before issuing any PCN.

9.2. Further, and in support of the submission that it is reasonable to conclude that the grace period should certainly be more than a mere eight minutes, the Defendant has found a BPA article published in 2013 - just months before this 2014 parking event - so PPS would be expected to have regard to it, being a BPA member at the time. The article is by Kelvin Reynolds, Director of Policy and Public Affairs, who, despite encouraging a ''war on the non-compliant motorist'' was honoured by the BPA for his outstanding contribution to parking with a Lifetime Achievement Award.

9.2.1. Mr Reynolds' article had this to say about grace periods, which shows that the Defendant was not (in the BPA Trade Body's view) 'a non-compliant motorist': “No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.” The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place. Kelvin continues:''In the instance of a PCN being issued while a ticket is being purchased, the operator has clearly not given the motorist sufficient time to read the signs and comply as per the operator’s own rules.''



[FONT=&quot]10. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous (Abuse of Process)[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]10.1[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 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.

10.2 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.

10.3 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.

10.4 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.

10.5 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.

10.6 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:

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Please note: there was a url provided by coupon_mad here which the validation rules throw up as error since I am new user on the forum, hence had to remove
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]at para 98. {re ...The desirability of running that parking scheme at no cost, or ideally some profit, to themselves} ''Against this background, it can be seen that the £85 charge had two main objects. One was to manage the efficient use of parking space in the interests of the retail outlets, and of the users of those outlets who wish to find spaces in which to park their cars [...] The other purpose was to provide an income stream to enable ParkingEye to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit from its services...''[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]at para 193. ''Judging by ParkingEye’s accounts, and unless the Chelmsford car park was out of the ordinary, the scheme also covered ParkingEye's costs of operation and gave their shareholders a healthy annual profit.''

at para 198. ''The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme. It is here also set at a level enabling ParkingEye to make a profit.''[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]” [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] 10.7 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.

10.8 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.

10.9 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.

10.10 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...''

10.11 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.''

10.12 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.

10.13 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.

10.14 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.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Statement of Truth:

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


Name

Signature


Date[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

I am not sure that G24 were ex-clampers so remove that.

This makes no sense at all, as there are no 'statutory' duties per the BPA CoP and G24 are not in the BPA anyway, AND nothing makes it 'invalid', so bin your #7:

7. As no windscreen ticket PCN was issued and the communication to the keeper was done insufficiently, the statutory notification duties per the BPA Code of Practice were not followed by the claimant which makes this claim invalid.

8. The allegation appears to be based on a parking charge notice ('PCN') that was prematurely issued based on overstay by just twelve minutes

Do not call it 'an overstay of 12 minutes' at all, anywhere in your defence.

State that no parking overstay occurred, given that it would certainly have taken more than 2 minutes on arrival to drive in/up/round and found a space, then parked (and read the terms if they were visible) and this just leaves less than 10 minutes after the expiry of the allowed parking time, and that is fully covered in the IPC CoP ...blah blah...section on the mandatory grace period at the end.

Remove ALL mention of the BPA CoP!

Le_Kirk

Please note: there was a url provided by coupon_mad here which the validation rules throw up as error since I am new user on the forum, hence had to remove

It is recommended not to put hyperlinks in defences anyway as courts/judges will not follow them - just put the title of the article to which it refers, in this case ParkingEye V Beavis.

sensahuma

@Coupon_Mad, @Le_Kirk: Many thanks!

I have updated the defence as advised by removing point re lack of windscreen ticket, and also removed the entire section around BPA COP.
Any more changes?


************************

[FONT=&quot]IN THE COUNTY COURT CLAIM NO: xxxxxx [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]BETWEEN:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]G24 Limited (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxx (Defendant)

DEFENCE[/FONT]

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

2. The facts of the case are as follows:

2.1 The defendant visited this store on dd/mm/2018 for shopping; the store had a rooftop parking, FREE for all customers of the store. The defendant later found out (i.e. after receiving the PCN) that the parking for customers was free for 60 mins).

2.2 After having shopped at the store (which can be evidenced by a store related transaction on credit card statement), the defendant drove away from the store premises as normal. There was no notice/PCN/ticket issued.

2.3 Subsequently on (dd/mm/yy), the claimant issued a £100 ‘Contractual PCN’. As evidence, blurry photographic evidence of the car entering and exiting the store premises was provided as per which it is alleged that the defendant exceed the maximum duration of stay permitted by 12 minutes.

2.4 On receiving the first notice (i.e. PCN) by post, the defendant went back to the store and discussed the matter with the store manager. After verifying the shopping receipt, the store manager made a photocopy of the receipt and the PCN notice in order to get the PCN cancelled by contacting the third party ‘G24 Ltd.’. The said third party G24 Ltd., also the claimant in this matter, was responsible for managing the store’s parking area.

2.5 Soon after the above events the store went into administration and hence was closed down. This meant that even though the claimant harassed the defendant with penalty charge reminders, there was no way for the defendant to contact the store staff to resolve the matter.

2.6 After more than a year, the defendant received a Claim Form from Gladstone Solicitors with an issue data: dd/mm/19.

3. The Particulars of the claim state that the Defendant XXXX, as the driver of the vehicle: ABXX YYY allegedly parked in breach of conditions of the ‘Contract’ at the said location. 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. The defendant puts the claimant to strict proof to show that in the absence of any parking meters or pay stations, there was enough clear signage to show the store parking was chargeable to patrons of the store and that there was ANPR surveillance being conducted.


5. 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 entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

6. 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.

7. The allegation appears to be based on a parking charge notice ('PCN') that was prematurely issued considering it was a free parking zone for the patrons of the store and that NO overstay occurred, given that it would certainly have taken more than 2 minutes on arrival to drive in/up/round and finding a space, then parked (and read the terms if they were visible) thereby just leaving less than 10 minutes after the expiry of the allowed parking time, and that is fully covered in IPC CoP (Part-B Section #15) section on the mandatory 'grace period'. The Claimant is put to strict proof of any breach and of their decision-making in deciding to issue a PCN and why, as well as the reasoning behind an unconscionable £100 charge, rather than the few pounds tariff, if it is their case that this sum went unpaid, which is denied. The fact is, this PCN was issued in breach of the Claimant's Trade Body Code of Practice ('CoP') on 'Grace Periods'.

[FONT=&quot]8. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous (Abuse of Process)[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]8.1[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 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.

8.2 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.

8.3 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.

8.4 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.

8.5 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.

8.6 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 'ParkingEye V Beavis' case:
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]at para 98. {re ...The desirability of running that parking scheme at no cost, or ideally some profit, to themselves} ''Against this background, it can be seen that the £85 charge had two main objects. One was to manage the efficient use of parking space in the interests of the retail outlets, and of the users of those outlets who wish to find spaces in which to park their cars [...] The other purpose was to provide an income stream to enable ParkingEye to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit from its services...''[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]at para 193. ''Judging by ParkingEye’s accounts, and unless the Chelmsford car park was out of the ordinary, the scheme also covered ParkingEye's costs of operation and gave their shareholders a healthy annual profit.''

at para 198. ''The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme. It is here also set at a level enabling ParkingEye to make a profit.''[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]” [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] 8.7 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.

8.8 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.

8.9 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.

8.10 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...''

8.11 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.''

8.12 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.

8.13 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.

8.14 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.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Statement of Truth:

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


Name

Signature


Date[/FONT]

Le_Kirk

You just need some paragraph numbers between 8.6 & 8.7

1505grandad

Para 3 - "The Particulars of the claim state that the Defendant XXXX, as the driver of the vehicle: ABXX YYY allegedly parked in breach of conditions of the ‘Contract’ at the said location. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices."

What assertions/menu of choices?

sensahuma

"You just need some paragraph numbers between 8.6 & 8.7".



Will change it to as follows:


***********************

[FONT=&quot]8.6 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 ‘[/FONT]ParkingEye V Beavis’ case - paras #98,#193, #198.


*****************************


Is this ok?
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]