Premier Park Ltd CCBC

Coupon-mad

Simza24 wrote: »

If driver has not been mentioned as of yet, does that stay without being talked about?

Depends.

If your case is mainly about unclear signs, it's easier in court to honestly explain as an admitted witness who was there on the day, how sparse the signs were, and the small print. So, how do you feel comfortable talking about your main defence?

However, Premier Park NTKs were (for a long time, and probably still to this day) not quite worded properly and they used to say 'if within 29 days we do not know driver details...'.

It is not right, not quite, and some Judges might be interested to hear about this and some might call it semantics and decide that the NTK is 'substantially compliant'.

But it's true that their wording does not match the POFA para 9(2)f. It is the word ''within'' at fault. Search the forum for Premier Park within as I answered this yesterday.

Make your own mind up which tactic you will try, and if unsure at this stage, do not (yet) admit to driving, but no lying, just don't say!

Simza24

Good evening! I've got my first draft defence ready. Given my lack of actual information, there's not much that I've written myself. Should it still be so long?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx
BETWEEN:

Premier Park Limited (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxx xxxxxxxx ( Defendant)

DEFENCE

1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incidents. The Claim relates to an alleged debt in damages arising from a driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at XXXXXXXX, Bristol XX/XX/2018 and YY/YY/2018

2. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
3. The allegation appears to be based on a parking charge notice (‘PCN’) that was issued on both days, whilst displaying a permit that was valid for the aforementioned specific days. On the YY/YY/2018, a PCN was issued at *time* despite a clear permit being displayed that was valid until *after *time* *. The Defendant was a tenant of *aforementioned building XXXX*.
4. 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.
5. The Particulars of Claim fails to distinguish whether the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). 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.
6. The arbitrary addition of a fixed sum purporting to cover 'recovery costs' is potentially open to challenge as an unfair commercial practice under the CPRs, where 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.

7. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred an additional £60 in damages or costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. Alleging that the letters the parking firm sent have caused an additional loss, is simply untrue. The standard wording for parking charge/debt recovery contracts is/was 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, because parking charges (unlike other 'debt' claims) must by definition, already encompass the costs of the operation.

8. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported added £60 'damages/costs' are wholly disproportionate, are not genuine losses at all and do not stand up to scrutiny. This has finally been recognised in many court areas. Differently from almost any other trader/consumer agreement, when it comes to parking charges on private land, binding case law and two statute laws have the effect that the parking firm's own business/operational costs cannot be added again, to the 'parking charge'.

The Beavis case is against this Claim
9. This charge is unconscionable and devoid of any 'legitimate interest', given the facts. To quote from the decision in the Beavis case at Para [108]: ''But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85''. And at [199]: ''What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 [...] is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests.''

9.1. The Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in the Beavis case) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model including recovery letters. 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 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, where it was stated three times that the £85 had to cover the costs of the letters.

9.2. In the Beavis case it was said at para [205]: ''The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.''

9.3. 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...''

9.4. 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.'' and 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.''

The POFA 2012 and the ATA Code of Practice are against this Claim
10. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 ('the POFA') at paras 4(5) and 4(6) 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' ('NTK'). Further, the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is no more than £100, and in this case the parking charge in the small print on the signs, and in each NTK, was stated to be £100 and this must have been set to include the costs of recovering the charge, or it falls foul of the Beavis case.

The CRA 2015 is against this claim
11. Further, the purported added 'costs' are disproportionate, vague and in breach of the CRA Schedule 2 'terms that may be unfair'. This Claimant has arbitrarily added an extra £60 to the parking charge, in a double recovery attempt that has already been exposed and routinely disallowed by many Courts in England and Wales. It is astounding to this Defendant, that this has been allowed to continue unabated for so many years. Even if most courts are routinely disallowing the added £60 'costs' of all parking charge cases now (and it is clear from online reports that almost all courts are disallowing that sum) this is not enough.

11.1. It is especially unacceptable that parking firms are still filing claims including what they know is a tainted and unrecoverable sum, considering the number of victims receiving this Claimant's exaggerated Letter before Claim, or the claim form, who then either pay an inflated amount or suffer a default judgment for a sum that could not otherwise be recovered. It is only those who defend, who draw individual cases to the attention of the courts one by one, but at last in 2019, some areas noticed the pattern and have moved to stop this abuse of process at source, including in the Caernarfon Court in Case number F2QZ4W28 (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 in 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.''

11.2. In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T - BRITANNIA PARKING -v- Mr C and another - less than two weeks later - the courts went further in a landmark judgment in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes QC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. Cases summarily struck out in that circuit, included BPA members using BW Legal's robo-claim model and the Orders from that court were identical in striking out all such claims without a hearing during a prolonged period in 2019, 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 the Beavis case. 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...''

11.3. BW Legal made an application objecting to two 'test' cases that had been struck out by District Judge Taylor against a parking firm for trying to claim for £160 instead of £100 parking charge. This has been repeated conduct in recent years, on the back of the Beavis case, where parking firms have almost unanimously contrived to add £60, or more, on top of the 'parking charge'. Members of both ATAs who have influence on their self-serving 'Trade Bodies' have even voted to have this imaginary 'damages/debt collection' sum added to their respective two Codes of Practice, to create a veil of legitimacy, no doubt to allow their members to confuse consumers and to enable them to continue to 'get away with it' in several court areas which are still allowing this double recovery.

11.4. That N244 application to try to protect the cartel-like position of some of the 'bigger player' parking firms, was placed before the area Circuit Judge and a hearing was held on 11th November 2019, with other parking charge cases in that circuit remaining struck out or stayed, pending the outcome. The Defendants successfully argued on points including a citation of the CRA 2015 and the duty of the court to apply the 'test of fairness' to a consumer notice (a statutory duty that falls upon the courts, whether a consumer raises the issue or not). All three points below were robustly upheld by District Judge Grand, sitting at the Southampton Court, who agreed that:
(a) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge (howsoever argued or constructed) was in breach of POFA, due to paras 4(5) and 4(6).
(b) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge (howsoever argued or constructed) was unconscionable, due to the Beavis case paras 98, 193, 198 and 287.
(c) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge where the additional 'recovery' sum was in small print, hidden, or in the cases before him, not there at all, is void for uncertainty and in breach of the CRA, Schedule 2 (the 'grey list' of terms that may be unfair) paragraphs 6, 10 and 14.

11.5. At the hearing, the Judge refused their request to appeal. A transcript will be publicly available shortly. In his summing up, it was noted that District Judge Grand stated: ''When I come to consider whether the striking out of the whole claim is appropriate, that the inclusion of the £60 charge means that the whole claim is tainted by it, the claimant should well know that it is not entitled to the £60. The very fact that they bring a claim in these circumstances seems to me that it is an abuse of process of the court, and in saying that, I observe that with any claim that can be brought before the court that if a party doesn't put in a defence to the claim, default judgments are entered. So, the Claimant, in bringing the claims is, in other cases, aware that if the defendant doesn’t submit a defence, the Claimant is going to get a judgment of a knowingly inflated amount. So I conclude by saying that I dismiss the application to set aside Judge Taylor’s ruling.''
12. In December 2019 in a different Court circuit, Deputy District Judge Joseph sitting at Warwick County Court had clearly heard about the decisions affecting the IOW, Hampshire, Dorset and Wiltshire circuit because he summarily struck out another parking ticket claim. The Judge mentioned the POFA 2012 and the Beavis case, and determined that ''it is an abuse of process for the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.'' Further, in issuing his Order without a hearing, the Judge stated that he had ''considered S71(2) of the CRA 2015 for the fairness of the contract terms and determined that the provision of the additional charge breached examples 6, 10 and 14''.

13. The Defendant requests that this Court - using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. - recognises its duty to consider the CRA 2015 in the same way as the Southampton and Warwick courts recently have done, and opts to summarily strike out this claim due to the Claimant's flagrant disregard for consumer rights as set out in statute.

14. The Defendant is of the view that this Claimant knew or should have known that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private land is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the POFA and the CRA 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

15. 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, harassing and indeed untrue in terms of the added costs alleged and the statements made.

16. If this claim is not summarily struck out for the same reasons as the Judges cited in the multiple Caernarfon, Southampton, IOW and Warwick County Court decisions, then due to this Claimant knowingly proceeding with a claim that amounts to an abuse of process, full costs will be sought by the Defendant at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Statement of Truth:

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


Name

Signature


Date


The other thing is: The CCBC letter brings the first date into question only, whilst I have the valid permit proof to hand for the second date. I'm waiting on the SAR to come back (not written in defence yet, still have a week until defence due) which should say all the "offences" that they want money off me for... But until then can I still write this as I have?

Coupon-mad

OK that's good but need the usual point added about no proprietary interest, as per all the other defences on threads right now, click on any!

The CCBC letter brings the first date into question only, whilst I have the valid permit proof to hand for the second date. I'm waiting on the SAR to come back (not written in defence yet, still have a week until defence due) which should say all the "offences" that they want money off me for... But until then can I still write this as I have?

No, you should only respond to the particulars as filed, so if the claim only mentions one date and one PCN then only respond in the defence, to that.

Simza24

Hello again! 
This morning, I got a letter informing me that i've been allocated to the small claims track, at my local court. It's a telephone hearing on the 1st July. I've checked the courts open via the Excel sheet posted in the new telephone thread, and this one appears closed. It says about submitting WS & documents to rely on. If correct, this means I now need to prepare:
1)WS 2)Cover letter for email 3) Draft Order (word doc) 4)combined PDF of everything 
and once complete, send to both the court and claimant? 
My query is about an SAR: claimant has another picture of a valid parking permit on different day, but they put in a ticket saying it was invalid. Can I use this in my WS at all to say that in the past I have had a legitimate permit? And submit that picture as proof, despite it being for a different day? 

Le_Kirk

If you haven't previously submitted a Witness Statement (WS), evidence and Summary Costs Assessment, then do so now in line with the instructions from the court.  In your WS include anything that will help your case; refer to it as photo of valid permit SIMZA_001 or whichever number you have reached (and SIMZA can be your initials).  In your WS you start off by stating that this is your WS during which you will refer to exhibits SIMZA_001 to SIMZA_NNN .  If you have previously submitted a WS, you might get away with a supplementary WS on the basis that you have received the claimants WS and wish to bring to the attention of the court some previously unknown information.

Ralph-y

this is the discussion that you now need to read

Anticipate a Telephone Hearing and email the local court, save your ink:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6130456/telephone-hearings-re-parking-firm-claims-can-we-all-discuss-strategy-and-outcomes-here#latest

Ralph

Coupon-mad

Simza24 said:

Hello again! 
This morning, I got a letter informing me that i've been allocated to the small claims track, at my local court. It's a telephone hearing on the 1st July. I've checked the courts open via the Excel sheet posted in the new telephone thread, and this one appears closed. It says about submitting WS & documents to rely on. If correct, this means I now need to prepare:
1)WS 2)Cover letter for email 3) Draft Order (word doc) 4)combined PDF of everything 
and once complete, send to both the court and claimant? 

Yes, good research.

Ideally you DON'T want a telephone hearing which is why you need the covering email.  If you are supervising and home-schooling children then look at the suggested covering email I wrote for @Littlewadie or if you are a keyworker then put that in as your reason not to want a remote hearing during lockdown, and get that emailed to the court within 5 days of getting that Order.

Simza24

Hello wonderful people! I've almost finished with the writing side of the prep. Could you please just check this WS sequence/later events is worded OK? I think I've managed to adapt the other great examples. 

3.1. On the material date 08/02/2020 the car was parked at Unite House, Bristol and obtained a paper parking permit completed by Unite House reception team, and displayed it in the windscreen of my car, registration number XXXX XXX. As a reservist with the Royal Air Force, but a student without a specific parking space, I was informed I could park at Unite House on occasion, with a valid permit. On my return to my car later in the morning I did not notice anything different, however my permit had fallen to the footwell of the vehicle.

3.2. On the 23rd February, the car was again parked overnight at Unite House, for the same reason. I had obtained a permit from 20:00 22/02/2018 until 09:00 23/02/2018. I arrived at the vehicle and saw a PCN issued at 08:22 on the morning of 23/02/2018. The Subject Access Request, issued by the Claimant shows a picture of this, and I attach Exhibit SIMZA_001 of the valid permit at the time.

3.3. I contacted the Unite House reception team, who had been known to be able to cancel a PCN at their discretion of this minor oversight but in this particular case they explained that I had to contact the Claimant.

3.4. I appealed to Premier Park Ltd via email explaining the minor oversight. They gave a generic response rejecting my appeal saying that ‘The permit displayed is not valid’.

 

4. Later Events:

4.1 After spending some time researching issues and complaints surrounding Private Parking Companies (hereafter referred to as PPCs), I decided to wait until the Claimant contacted me.

4.2 After obtaining my details from the DVLA, I received a Notice To Keeper from The Claimant, demanding a payment of £100 within 29 days, which is when it was brought to my attention there were separate PCNs involved. I received follow up letters demanding payment and Premier Park Ltd had sent a Letter before Claim in 2018, shown as exhibit SIMZA_002, stating that the claimed sum in alleged debt was £100, yet later, I received a Letter Before Claim from Gladstones Solicitors dated 27th July 2018 demanding payment of £150 which included additional ‘costs’.  The Notice to Keeper, my appeal and The Claimant's rejection of my appeal, plus the conflicting Letters before Claim can all be seen as Exhibits SIMZA_002, SIMZA_003, SIMZA_004, and SIMZA_005 respectively.

4.3.  While I fully appreciate the need for parking control on private land I do not appreciate the apparent business tactics of the claimant Premier Park Limited whereby they insist people going about their daily business have entered into some kind of vague “contract” with them, based on the small wording on unobtrusive signs.

The rest goes on as no contract/inadequate signage/costs/behaviour. 

Umkomaas

On the 23rd February, the car was again parked overnight at Unite House, for the same reason. I had obtained a permit from 20:00 22/02/2018 until 09:00 23/02/2018. I arrived at the vehicle and saw a PCN issued at 08:22 on the morning of 23/02/2018. The Subject Access Request, issued by the Claimant shows a picture of this, and I attach Exhibit SIMZA_001 of the valid permit at the time.

If you had a permit until 09.00 on 23/02, why were they ticketing the vehicle at 08.22?   Had this permit also fallen into the footwell?

Simza24

Umkomaas said:

On the 23rd February, the car was again parked overnight at Unite House, for the same reason. I had obtained a permit from 20:00 22/02/2018 until 09:00 23/02/2018. I arrived at the vehicle and saw a PCN issued at 08:22 on the morning of 23/02/2018. The Subject Access Request, issued by the Claimant shows a picture of this, and I attach Exhibit SIMZA_001 of the valid permit at the time.

If you had a permit until 09.00 on 23/02, why were they ticketing the vehicle at 08.22?   Had this permit also fallen into the footwell?

No reason at all!! The permit was on the dash, and they ticketing person even took a picture of my valid permit, which is why I'm keen to show this in my WS. 
I did hear from the reception team that some people had been taking advantage and editing their permits, such as turning a 0 into an 8, to extend a day to maybe a week or month - but it's clear here that it was only for 13 hours and not 13 weeks.