Court claim letter received

AB0013

Will definitely complain to MP - its on the list! Thanks @The Deep!

KeithP

How's your Defence coming along?

Remember...

...you have until 4pm on Tuesday 10th December 2019 to file your Defence.

Just one week left.

AB0013

Thanks for checking in KeithP! Ok first draft of defence below - feedback welcome. I have used a company to assist me as i've not had as much time as i'd like so do have a couple of questions:

1) the opening statement is written as first person - does that need amending too?

2) IAS accepted an appeal for exact same issue/ parking bay in question - do I include this in my defence or witness statement?. Screen shots were publicly posted on FB with permission to use from the defendant.

3) When I appealed via IAS I did state that I was the driver but it was so long after the PCN was first issued (first letter i received was a debt collectors letter), so I couldn't actually be certain.

4) During the appeal UK CPM lied about where signage was situated (none exist in front of the space in question) I have taken photos to prove this is incorrect. Should this be included in the defence?

4) Also the PPC warden was sitting in wait for unsuspecting drivers to park - running out and taking photos (no ticket issued to vehicle) whilst the drivers go into the shops and then running back and waiting for the next. An entrapment conveyor belt!. Surely this would be frowned upon in court? Do I add this info and photos?


Claim Number: FXXXXXXX BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Claimant) vs XXXXXXXXXXX (Defendant)
__________________________Defence Argument_________________________________

I am xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx of address is the defendant in this matter. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I seek the Court's permission to amend and supplement this defence as may be required upon disclosure of the claimant's case.

Rebuttal of Claim - It is denied that:
a) A contract was formed
b) There was an agreement to pay a parking charge.
c) That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site.
d) That in addition to the Parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.
e) The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the terms of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
f) The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.
g) That the defendant is liable for the purported debt. It is further denied that the defendant owes any debt to the claimant or that any debt is in fact owed or that any debt exists or could ever exist or has ever existed. That in any event the claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules and that their claim is both unfounded and vexatious.
h) The claimant is put to the strictest proof of their assertions.

The defence to this claim relies principally these main points, as follows:
a) The defendant disputes liability for this parking charge as the 'out of bay' area in question has NO specific signage to make it clear that this bay (the bay they were issued a PCN for) differs from the other central retail park bays. The 8 bays are all exactly the same size, but 7 are for 3 cars, so it is reasonable to assume that (all 8) including the bay in question is also for 3 cars and not 2. Since being issued a ticket the defendant was made aware of the pale grey brick outline on the floor, which supposedly identifies the bay outline and is even more difficult to see in dusk lighting or rain etc. so it is proposed that it is not sufficient to identify as 'clearly marked' and may drivers park leaving a middle space for another car.

Tesco’s have been notified directly by the Defendant and have confirmed they are taking the matter up directly with the landowners and car park maintenance team as they have seen first hand how it's misleading and has caused problems to their customers.
b) No ticket was issued to the defendant’s car and they only became aware of this incident when on receiving a letter from a debt recovery company. After some back and forth communications the defendant appealed to the Claimant company via the Independent Appeal Service and the appeal was rejected, however the defendant notes that other case appeals have been accepted by the IAS for exactly the same issue and space in question.

Adjudicator Appeal Accepted 03/11/2018
"This is not the first appeal I have dealt with regarding this site, and the same comments apply - the signage is inadequate - see operator photographs showing no signage in evidence, and the markings on the brickwork are confusing where spaces usually allocated for three cars are reduced to two. These larger spaces are not even allocated to disabled drivers and when seeing two cars parked here with a space in between them it is natural to assume there is another space to park in. Appeal Allowed"

c) As the Claimant is not the owner of this land they cannot form a contract with the person they claim to be the driver without the express authorisation from the landowner. As per their own code of conduct they must follow to issue parking charges the company must
i) provide the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent)
ii)The written confirmation must be given before they can start operating on the land in question and give them the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that they are responsible

d) The Claimant has included un-quantified costs of £60 to the is Claim however 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.
e) 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. 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.
f) 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. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.
g) 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 an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. The judges stated, ''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 Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum that 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...''
h) 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 mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.
i) There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters that 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.

Conclusion
The defendant denies that they are liable to the Claimant for the sums claimed, or any amount at all. The defendant invites the Court to strike out the claim as being without merit, and with no realistic prospect of success.

All evidence referred to will be provided at least 14 days before any hearing date.

Statement of Truth:

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


Name

Signature


Date

Fruitcake

Have a look at this case where the judge said the parking operative is legally bound to mitigate their company's loss by warning motorists of a charge. Assuming the ling works, read page 8 from point 21 on.
Otherwise search for VCS v Ibbotson.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16231

AB0013

[Have a look at this case where the judge said the parking operative is legally bound to mitigate their company's loss by warning motorists of a charge. Assuming the ling works, read page 8 from point 21 on.
Otherwise search for VCS v Ibbotson.




Oh wow! Just read that case - brilliant reading! Thanks @Fruitcake! ;0)

So the fact that I spotted the PA on a different day hiding in his car - is this relevant?

Also do we include that the the claimant is not authorised to issue proceedings? When would I expect to see their contract?

Coupon-mad

Ibbotson is very old now though, and is trumped by the ParkingEye v Beavis case at the Supreme Court, which P/Eye won of course in 2015 and which shot down any reliance on 'no loss' (therefore no duty now to mitigate loss, not with parking charges, as they are not based on that).

So the fact that I spotted the PA on a different day hiding in his car - is this relevant?

Yes - if you film him doing that between now and WS & evidence stage.

Also do we include that the the claimant is not authorised to issue proceedings?

In what way? They can sue people and will have a contract of some sort.

When would I expect to see their contract?

Their Landowner contract? With their WS before the hearing, as always.

Search the forum for Jack Chapman signature and read all results.

I have used a company to assist me

Oh dear. Has your TrustPilot radar broken? Or were you lucky in that you stumbled across such a firm without the worst Trustpilot rating ever seen on this forum, worse than parking firms?

AB0013

Thanks for your feedback Coupon Mad - will look this info up first thing.

re the contact to enforce I was going on the ibbotson case.

Can I include anything re the IPC / Gladstones scam to reinforce my case too?

Coupon-mad

No, leave the IPC /Gladstones rant out of it, as your issue is with the Claimant.

AB0013

Yes - if you film him doing that between now and WS & evidence stage.

Sorry confused - Do I still include in the Defence Statement?

The_Deep

I returned to take photos and saw the PPC enforcement staff sitting in wait for people to park in this space and when the driver has entered the shop they run out take photos and run back to car to wait for the next! It's total entrapment!!

If they take you to court be sure to mention this to the judge.