New Claim form - One Solutions Parking - Private land

Fruitcake

The scammers are BPA members now. You need to determine if they were so at the time, but as above, I suspect they were.
They are not in the IPC now, and no scammer has ever jumped from the IPC to the BPA, only ever the other way round.


I suggest you delete 4. Just leave the denials in 5 but renumber everything.

Use numbers not letters for sections.

4
4.1
4.2

etcetera.

Point 14 is a repeat of part of 12.

Shadowcheater

Thank you so much for your advice.

I will amend my defence as recommended, fruitcake. Ta.

Yes, Ive seen that they are not in the IPC, I'll try and find out if they were members of BPA at the time.

Here is a link to the signage that I look today.

w.dropbox.com/home/One%20Solutions%20Parking?preview=IMG_0978+(1).jpg

KeithP

Using that Dropbox link, I get the message:

The folder ‘/One Solutions Parking’ doesn’t exist

Umkomaas

Yes, Ive seen that they are not in the IPC, I'll try and find out if they were members of BPA at the time.

Almost certainly. I've yet to see a PPC move back from the IPC to the BPA. It's that they are so much cheaper and IPC membership doesn't risk losing at the second stage appeal level.

But if you want absolute confirmation, try this email address.

aos@britishparking.co.uk

Or go to the BPA website and there's a portal for contact.

Shadowcheater

I think I am ready to to send in my defence. Would appreciate one last look.

Here's the link to photos, have included evening images and One Parking solutions data of alledged parking offence.
xxxps://onedrive.live.com/?id=DFC8647663D17D6D%211615&cid=DFC8647663D17D6D

Do I send the photos with my defence?


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. It is denied that:
4.1. A contract was formed
4.2. There was an agreement to pay a parking charge.
4.3. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site or that the parking areas were clearly delineated or the signs adequately lit.
4.4. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.
4.5.The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the British Parking Association Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.

5. 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.

6. 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.
6.1. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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 illegible, therefore, denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

11. 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.

12. 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,

13. 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”.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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


Many thanks in advance.

KeithP

Shadowcheater wrote: »

Do I send the photos with my defence?

No, nothing gets sent with a Defence.

Evidence comes later - maybe a few months later.

Keep following the guidance in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread.


That one drive link is asking me to signin.

Coupon-mad

Remove #15 which is not relevant to DCBLegal, and then it's fine to sign & email.

Read CEC16's thread to learn about the abuse of process of adding £60, as it's about a case where I was the lay rep at Southampton and we are waiting to see if BW Legal seek leave to appeal and we know at least nine Soton cases are hinging upon it, and that other courts are starting to hear about it and striking cases out without a hearing.

We can add more meat to the bones, and any photos evidence, at WS stage and I am happy to turn up to speak or help at Sussex court cases in 2020 if I am available.

KeithP

Just looked at the first item in that onedrive folder and is shows your full name, vehicle reg no, address, PCN number, etc.

You are best advised to remove that link immediately.

I've not checked the rest of that first document and not even looked at the other documents.

Shadowcheater

Thank you everyone, I would't have got so far without you.

I've sent my defence and will wait.

Coupon-mad

It shows your numberplate and name so you might want to take that off the forum for now. If you want me to assist later, please and me a pm at WS stage and I can take a look again then.

I would add this and remove 'communication' as it's not needed in a car park:

5. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge' and no consideration was on offer or exchanged [STRIKE]or communication took place[/STRIKE] between the parties and therefore no contract was established.
The car is shown displaying a One Parking Solutions Permit and there is no evidence that this was invalid, and this cannot be presumed.