New Claim form - One Solutions Parking - Private land

Shadowcheater

Hello there,

I'd like to know how I am doing and if you think I have a case.

Last December I parked in a large car park for residence of a block of flats. ( I was visiting a friend, no visitor spaces that I could see) The private land has spaces for more than thirty cars and I've never seen more than three parked at one time. I received letters from One Solution Ltd and their Lawyers DCB legal, I ignored them all.
I recently got a Claim Form for County Court Business Centre, Northampton.
I immediately went on line and made an Acknowledged of Service.
Emailed a SAR request To One Parking Solution
Emailed DCB to require a restriction of data processing and that the case should be put 'on hold'.

I am about to try and find a defence, I am thinking signage issues and trespass rather than parking fine. I will upload the signs tomorrow.

Many thanks in advance for your help.

KeithP

Hello and welcome to the forums.

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

On what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?

I see you're in Brighton. Where did this alleged parking event take place? In Brighton?

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad and ParkingMad are pretty local, both love destroying OPS at court, so will be particularly interested in your case - if it gets as far as court.

One or other or both will pick this up in the next couple of days and no doubt comment.

Coupon-mad

Emailed DCB to require a restriction of data processing and that the case should be put 'on hold'.

Pointless, too late for that!

Same advice as here, we are happy to help you in court, for free:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6078289/gladstones-court-claim-for-oneparkingsolution

Shadowcheater

Thank you, for your welcome and reply, so appreciated.

The Issue date was 27th November.
I filed an Acknowledgment of Service on the 29th November.
Yes, I live in Brighton and the alleged parking event took place in Brighton, Ivory Place.

That's brilliant Coupon Mad, your offer of help in court and advice is very reassuring.
I didn't realise the restriction of data was pointless, trying to follow advice on Newbie page step by step.

The_Deep

You have not told us where you parked. If you parked in someone else's space you may struggle in court. If you parked in your friend's space read this.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]what does his/her lease/AST say about parking? Does it mention the need to display a permit? If not then it may take primacy over the self serving TnC of the scammer, and interfere with his lawful [/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]right to “quiet enjoyment” of his property, possible an offence under The Landlord and Tenants Acts.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][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, and in some cases, cancellation.

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][/FONT]

beamerguy

The mentality of DCB Legal is a puzzle. By joining the scam industry can only lead to tears for them, let alone any credibility they have.
BWLegal have learned this to their cost

Assume they have added a fake £60 to the claim

KeithP

Shadowcheater wrote: »

The Issue date was 27th November.
I filed an Acknowledgment of Service on the 29th November.

With a Claim Issue Date of 27th November, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 30th December 2019 to file your Defence.

That's nearly 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. No need to do anything on MCOL, but do check it 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 trying to keep you under pressure. Just file it.
   
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.

Shadowcheater

Hey,

I think my defence is a bit weak, I didn't park in my friends bay as their was no way of knowing which was hers or if they were indeed allocated. I simply parked in one of the many many empty bays. No visitor parking proivided.

The signage from One Solutions says you need a permit to park but as for her lease with her landlord I don't know. We have had a falling out and contacting her for help is a no go.

Yes DCB Legal added on a £60 extra bonus, final 'bill' is £247!!

I will complain to my MP as these private parking companies are ruthless.

I have written my defence, as follows:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

ONE PARKING SOLUTION LTD (Claimant)

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

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

3. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle X when it was parked at Ivory Place, Brighton.

4. Based upon the scant and deficient details contained in the Particulars of Claim and correspondence, it appears to be the Claimant’s case that:
a. There was a contract formed by the Defendant and the Claimant on --/--/2018.
b. There was an agreement to pay a sum or 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 International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.

5. 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 or that the parking areas were clearly delineated or the signs adequately lit.
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 International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.

6. The Defendant did not enter into any ‘agreement on the charge’, no consideration or communication took place between the parties and therefore no contract was established.

7. The Defendant denies that they would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.
a. The amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council which is set at £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days.

8. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant, was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle X. 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.

9. 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, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

10. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant’s signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term ‘correctly parked’, nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom or where visitors should park.

11. The terms on the Claimant’s signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. The signage was also not lit and as the alleged parking event took place on a winters evening all terms were illegable, therefore, denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

12. The Claimant’s representatives, DCB Legal, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim to £247.21 . The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

13. 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 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye 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,

14. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

15. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”.

16. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary 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.

17. 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. Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims and the solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

18. In summary, it is the Defendant’s position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature Date

I have a couple of day time images of the signage, will go back one evening and photo again as I know the lighting was so poor when I parked I couldn't see the signs let allow what they said.

1505grandad

One Parking Solution Ltd are BPA AoS members - however:-

OP #1 says - "Last December I parked in a large car park for residence of a block of flats."

Defence says - 4e & 5e. "The Claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time."

But:-

A post dated 19.11.2018 by C-m in another thread says - "You can either appeal by post as keeper, or wait for the Notice to Keeper which will be altered. Either way, easy to beat at POPLA as long as you do not imply who was driving."

which suggests they were in BPA at time of parking event.

Shadowcheater

which suggests they were in BPA at time of parking event.

Do you mean they WEREN'T members at the time?

Sorry finding it had to full understand what you mean and what I should do/change or remove from my defence.