UK Parking Patrol BW Legal County Court Claim

soleldn

Hi All!

I received a County Court Claim issued on 11th Oct 2019 for a PCN issued on a windscreen in June 2018 for “Parking in No Parking area” from UK Parking Patrol Office. The PCN was issued on the Wembley Park estate, next to a residential block of flats while visiting a resident of the estate. Driving access into the estate was blocked on that day, as there were events at Wembley, and access by car is always blocked on event days. The driver was given access by the steward patrolling the area, who opened the gates to let them in, as the driver was there to drive a resident to their home. The driver asked the steward if there was somewhere they could park while visiting the resident’s home on the Wembley Park estate and was shown to a parking space that the steward had blocked with a cone. The steward removed the cone and informed the driver they could park there, making no mention of any time limits. On leaving and returning to the space, the driver found a PCN on the windscreen. Signage around the parking bay suggested that parking is restricted there, however, as the stewards act on behalf of the parking enforcement/ landowner, permission from the steward would translate to permission from the parking enforcer/landowner to park in the space and would override signage.
I (the registered keeper) did not respond to the letters sent by UKPPO until I received a LBCCC at which point I submit an SAR to UKPPO and emailed BW legal to ask they put the PCN on hold. I made an SAR and received a response (2 months late) and the information/photos. I received a letter from BW legal saying they refuse my request to restrict processing as s10 of DTA 1998 has been repealed. I will refer to the late response to the SAR in my defence. I also noted that in the pdf I received for the SAR from UKPPO, the bookmarks within the pdf were all named “c**t” (yes, the bad bad word you’re thinking of). Has anyone seen this before? It does not look like a mistake/system generated thing. I am extremely offended and would like to know whether this should be included in my defence, if it will help make UKPPO look as incompetent, aggressive and vile as they are.
In light of these facts, do I have a defence to make around the misinformation from the steward around allowing me to park in a "restricted" area? I don’t have any evidence of this, unless there is CCTV that could be accessed. Would I defend as the keeper, or identify the driver of the vehicle on that day and present the facts as above? The alternative defence route that I see is to defend as the keeper, without disclosing who was driving (3 people are insured on the vehicle) and to defend based on that + inadequate signage + no contract being entered into/no parking offered.
The resident the driver was visiting contacted the managers of Wembley Park estate to explain the situation, the misinformation on the steward’s behalf and asked that the PCN and court claim are cancelled. The Head of Transport and Commercial Parking for Wembley Park estate was very unhelpful and replied that “all enquiries regarding parking enforcement on the Wembley Park estate must be via the service provider UK Parking Patrol LTD.” Upon pressuring him further and reiterating the points, he gave the same reply.
The PCN states: The vehicle was parked on private property in contravention of the site parking restrictions as displayed on the signage in or around the site. The period to which this charge relates is the period immediately preceding the 'Time of Issue' above. The driver is liable for this charge.
The "Reminder Notice" sent to the Keeper 29 days after the PCN was issued stated “On X June 2018, you were granted a limited contractual license to enter the land known as (“Site”), which is managed and operated by Our Client. In return, you were to abide by certain terms and conditions which were prominently displayed on the signage erected in situ by Our Client. On X June 2018, you breached the Terms and Conditions by PARKING IN NO PARKING AREA. The Breach resulted in Our Client issuing a PCN on X/06/2018, which despite our client’s attempts to engage with you on and agree a suitable payment arrangement, remains unpaid.”
Since then I have visited the site and signs on the road give clear guidance that parking is allowed whilst loading and unloading for 20 minutes. I imagine the rules may have been changed since the alleged contravention happened – not sure what impact this will have. Photographic evidence of the alleged parking contravention show that the vehicle was parked for 2.5 minutes.

My points for the defence are:
• Staff allowed the driver to park at the site that day
• Small, inadequate signs, that I actually havent completely read as the picture from UKPPO's online portal is very unclear
• No clear signs detailing terms of contract on entering private land or stating that there is a contract or any manner in which acceptance can be made
• Sign erected (I think) at a later date - some point after the PCN was issued – says parking is allowed for 20 minutes, photographic evidence does not prove vehicle was parked more than 3 minutes – no proof so far this sign was not there on contravention date
• According to UKPPO the car was parked in a no parking area therefore - was no relevant parking contract or licence on offer at the location – it is perhaps trespass that the landowner should be claiming for as there was apparently no parking on offer?
• SAR was provided 2 months late
• No landowner authority
• I can't find anything on the NTK that is not in compliance with POFA
I am aware I have until 4pm Wednesday 13th Nov (sorry for the late post) to submit my defence, and will post a draft defence on here ASAP for comments. In the meantime I would very much appreciate any assistance as to whether the above points form a good basis for my defence, if any other points should be raised, and if I should be defending as keeper or identifying the driver. Is there a chance I can submit an appeal to UKPPO based on the above points and have this cancelled by Wednesday? While I have been reading past defences/cases over the past few weeks, I just noticed today that this had worked with other parking operators based on the No keeper liability and late Notice to driver/keeper defence.
I am extremely grateful for all the help and advice on this forum! May you all be blessed with the good karma you deserve.

Redx

If UKPPO fulfilled POFA with the NTK and are pursuing you as keeper , then not knowing who was driving is a moot point , plus lying under oath is perjury

Squirming with a no comment about who was driving makes a defendant look bad and untrustworthy

POFA only helps if a PPC failed it , so don't assume that all defences are based on it

This week we had quantum winning in court as an admitted driver where they changed stance from keeper to Driver partway through due to the same issues regarding this conundrum

Better to be an admitted driver with a first witness account of events and telling the judge the story etc , same as you did above

Plus if UKPPO have screenshot your post above , how would you claim that the driver wasn't known ?

Your story above is a WS regarding the events and who did what

I think a driver based witness defence is the way to go , same as I told quantum weeks ago

Much too late for any appeal , which would be rejected anyway

Post the issue date from the top right of the claim form below

The_Deep

Have you read this? The T&C f the lease/AST of the flat's owner of the flat may be important. Look out for a "primacy of contract" loophole.

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

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

soleldn

Thanks for you response Redx!
Here is what the first letter from UKPPO - a "Reminder Notice" (not titled and no mentioned of "Notice to Keeper" said:
The driver of the above vehicle is liable for a Parking Charge of the above amount which, at the date of this notice, remains unpaid in full and for which the Balance Due remains outstanding.

A Parking Charge Notice (Notice to Driver) was affixed to the windscreen of your vehicle at
on the 02/06/2018. This charge relates to the period of parking that immediately preceded the issue of that Notice, the charge having been incurred for the reason as follows: Parking in No Parking area. Liability for the same having been brought to the attention of the driver by clear signage in and around the Site at the time of parking.

We have requested your details from the DVLA as the registered keeper of the vehicle (through the
Reasonable Cause criteria of pursuing an outstanding parking charge).

We, the above named company, are the creditor. At the time of this notice we do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver. You are now invited to either pay the unpaid parking charge or if you were not the driver, to notify us (in writing using the form attached) of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver AND pass this Notice on to the driver.

Please be warned: that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which this Notice is given (i) the amount of the unpaid Parking Charge specified in this Notice has not been paid in full, and (ii) we do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, we will have the right to recover the parking charge amount that remains unpaid from you, so much of that Parking Charge as remains unpaid. If the charge still remains unpaid the case will then be passed to our Debt Recovery Agent which may escalate to court proceedings to recover the amount owed. The overdue charge will increase to £150.00 in the first instance of further action.

The letter can be found in the dropbox link in first post.
It seems UKPPO/BW legal do not intend to rely on POFA and the keeper is not liable. Considering also that the resident has also reached out to Wembley Park and explained the story, it may not work to say I do not know the driver is. My point should be more to make no admission as to who the driver is, but I note your point that this can make the defendant look bad.
Can you please provide more detail around quantum's case and what the defense was? I can't see much detail on quantum's thread. Additionally, do you think I should delete some of the above details in the first thread, to avoid being identified by the parking firm? Or is it too late now anyway?

Redx

The first letter in the post between day 29 and day 56 is the notice to keeper , a notice sent in the post to the keeper of the vehicle after keeper details were obtained from the DVLA , even if it does not say "notice to keeper"

The point is that the first postal letter needs to conform to POFA if UKPPO wish to invoke keeper liability , so treat the first postal notice as a NTK and check it against POFA it may be called a parking charge notice of whatever , but is still a notice , an invoice , sent in the post , to the keeper

It's an unregulated industry so don't expect an ntk to say it's an NTK , that is too pedantic until the government defines the names in their new CoP

I don't give legal advice , never have , just general common sense advice , not would I do the job you should pay a lawyer to do , which is what Martin Lewis would tell you to do. Hire a lawyer

I referred you to the quantum thread to see my comments , their reaction and their court report , to see why it worked as an admitted driver

Look up promissory estoppel as regards your permission to park

Your words above lead me to believe that UKPPO took care to try to stick to POFA and make you as keeper liable , contrary to what you think

KeithP

soleldn wrote: »

I received a County Court Claim issued on 11th Oct 2019...

With a Claim Issue Date of 11th October, you had until Wednesday 30th October to do the Acknowledgement of Service.

Did you do the AoS by that date? If so, then skip the next paragraph, otherwise do the AoS today - NOW!!

To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 13th November 2019 to file your Defence.

That's just a few days 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.

soleldn

Thanks a lot KeithP - I did do the AOS by that date, yes. Now in the process of writing up my defence and submitting per you guidance above.

Coupon-mad

Exactly the same as the other Wembley Park estate cases on here then.

You only have to search UKPPO to find at least one person drafting a defence.

soleldn

I have drafted my defence below and would very much appreciate if someone would be willing to have a read and give me any feedback. I will of course attach all evidence to the final submission I make. Thank you!

IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No.: XXXXXXXX
Between

UK Parking Patrol Office Limited
(Claimant)

-and-


[NAME OF DEFENDANT]
(Defendant)



DEFENCE

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at the private car park/land located. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The Particulars of Claim on the Claim Form refer to 'a Parking Charge Notice' incurred on xx/06/2018. 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. 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. 6. The Defendant requires a copy of the contract (the signage terms on the material date) and a full and detailed explanation of the cause of action and on what basis they purport to hold the Defendant liable.
2.1 On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their roboclaim particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.
2.2 On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3-7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.

3. Neither the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on the windscreen, nor the Notice to Keeper (NTK) sent later, specified the terms of parking that had been allegedly breached, or how the charge had arisen. There is only vague reference made to “site parking restrictions as displayed on signage in and around the site”. Evidence of the sign allegedly on the site at the date of PCN issue, was obtained by the defendant from the Claimant’s website (not provided as part of the SAR as requested). The picture of the sign is extremely unclear and most of it cannot be read. If a parking enforcement officer is unable to take a clear enough picture of the sign, because it is so small, ineligible and unclear, it can hardly be expected that a driver from a passing vehicle, would be able to read it.
3.1 Due to this lack of evidence provided to the defendant, it is impossible for the Defendant to be certain about the alleged breach and to make an informed decision about what to say by way of defence, which puts the Defendant in a position of disadvantage. The Defendant has since revisited the site to observe the signs, but some signs seem to have been changed. As the Defendant is not aware where exactly the vehicle was parked, due to lack of information provided by the claimant, the Defendant cannot be sure where to look for the signs that would have applied on the date the PCN was issued.
3.2 Only in a letter of claim later received by BW Legal in July 2019, the Defendant was made aware that the charge had arisen as a result of an alleged contract that was entered into with the Claimant, upon entry to the Site. This shows inconsistency in the claimant’s provision of information around the terms and relevant contract that resulted in a PCN being issued.
4 Further , the signs, as pictured by the parking operator at the time of PCN issue refer to 'No Parking in this area”, and suggest that by parking in an area where there is no permission to park, motorists are contractually agreeing to a parking charge of £100. This is clearly nonsense, since if there is no permission, there is no offer, and therefore no contract.
4.1 If we assume that the small, illegible print at the bottom of the parking sign, pictured by the parking operator, contained terms that support the claim that a contract was entered into with the Claimant upon entry to the Site, as mentioned in para 3.2., these terms would need to be presented in clear, large, legible print, in order for a driver in a vehicle, entering the site to see and accept these terms, and form a contract. There was no such signage containing clear and legible terms, as evidenced in the attached street view image from Google Maps, of the entrance to the site, at xxx Drive (the entrance used by the driver on the day of the alleged contravention). Either way, it is impossible to come to a conclusion based on the evidence of signage provided by the parking operator on their website, as the sign, even in the picture online, is not readable.
5. The PCN and reminder letter later received, do not specify where the car was parked at the time of issue. A vague description of XXX Road is given, with no accurate specification as to where exactly the car was parked. The car cannot have been parked on XXX Road, as XXX Road cannot be accessed by car through the entrance which the vehicle in question entered the site (XXX Drive). This is evidenced in an attached image from Google Maps street view.
6. The Defendant sent a subject access request (SAR) to the Claimant by email, requiring a response within 30 calendar days, in line with the International Commissioner’s Office’s regulation. A response and the requested information (excluding the signs at the site on the day) was granted 2 months late. The delay in the provision for information is not only additional proof of the Claimant’s negligence and lack of professionalism in non-compliance with regulation, but has also prejudiced and disadvantaged the Defendant. The Defendant was unable to take the time required to produce a defence that addressed all the evidence provided, due to the SAR being granted very late.

7. On xx/06/18 entrance to the site was blocked by barriers and manned by a steward, due to events taking place on the day at Wembley Stadium and Arena. The steward advised that the driver could enter the site as the driver was with a resident of the Wembley Park estate. The steward then informed the driver that they could park in a space on the estate. The steward removed a cone from what appeared to be a parking space and informed the driver that they could park in the space. He made no mention of time limits or restrictions. The steward acts on behalf of the landowners, to prevent unauthorised access to and use of the site. It can only be inferred that authorisation to enter and park on the site from the steward is given on behalf of the landowner, and the vehicle was therefore authorised to park on the site on the date in question.
8. 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.
9. 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 against visitors. The Defendant has the reasonable belief and will produce evidence 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.
Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
10. For all or any of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss the Claim in its entirety, and to award the Defendant such costs as are allowable on the small claims track, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14. Given that the claim is based on an alleged contractual parking charge of £100 - already significantly inflated and mostly representing profit, as was found in Beavis - but the amount claimed on the claim form is inexplicably £244 the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process, and is not recoverable under CPR27.14. The fictitious amounts added on to the claim, over the £100 parking charge, are mentioned nowhere on the signs on the sign that the Claimant alleges contained contract terms.
10.1 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:
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.
11. Given that it appears that: this Claimant's conduct provides for no cause of action, this is intentional and contumelious, the vehicle was authorised to park at the site on the date of the PCN and the inadequate signage did not result in the formation of a contract, the Claimant's claim must fail and 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.

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

Le_Kirk

You don't attach evidence to a defence, that comes later with Witness Statement (WS). Your defence seems to be a mixture of defence and WS. Maybe strip out the narrative parts (what happened on the day) and keep the defence to legal technical points. It is OK to say, for example at point 5, the defendant will provide evidence showing why the car could not have been parked where the POC claims it to have been.

beamerguy

You have mentioned the fake £60 BWL add-on ..... so, you make certain the judge understands what the courts are saying about this

Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal

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

PLEASE READ POST #14 ON THIS THREAD BY COUPON-MAD and copy the full text