Excel Parking Services Ltd County Court Letter - Defence

painbl

February 2016, Me, my partner and my son were visiting Swansea and were booked into a hotel for the night. We arrived at the nearest car park around 6.30pm, so as you can imagine it was now dark. We exited the carpark to the hotel via one of the pedestrian exits without noticing any pay machines. The next morning our car had a PCN attached to it as being 'parked without displaying a valid ticket/permit'.

Prior to discovering this forum an appeal was sent to Excel detailing the events of our arrival including that there was insufficient signage within the car park. No surprise, they rejected the appeal and since then, along with BW Legal, have been sending me the usual nonsense to which I ignored.

November 2017, In a hope that I avoid them pursuing me further, I responded to BW Legal's letter of claim after reading information from the forum. The sent a response with all photos of signage etc (most were taken of the wrong car park!).

May 2019, I sent a SAR to Excel which they provided with me with photos, my original appeal letter, PCN etc.

Now received a county court claim letter with the issue date 30/12/19.
Filed AOS 4/1/2020.

I've been reading the newbies thread over the last few evenings, in particular Bargepole's defence example about unclear signage. In regards to 'the facts' part of my defence, how much detail should I go into?

I'll be posting my draft defence shortly if anyone could be kind enough to assist?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Have a look at the defence I wrote recently in basher52's thread, which also includes the added words we now recommend about the falsely added £60. You can copy the style of that one but change things like the £80 charge to £100, and the claimant's name and the details of what happened.

Also that one was about multiple PCNs so remove the plurals and that one involved a keeper Defendant who was NOT driving and denied it, so obviously you only do that (i.e. using the word 'deny') if it is true.

We hope your local court is NOT Swansea (reportedly, terrible Judges) so where?

KeithP

painbl wrote: »

Now received a county court claim letter with the issue date 30/12/19.
Filed AOS 4/1/2020.

With a Claim Issue Date of 30th December, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 3rd February 2020 to file your Defence.

That's 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.

The_Deep

From what you have told us they might struggle in court. Have the hotel been of help. If not write bad stuff on TripAdvisor, booking.com, Trivago et al.

[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, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and has been known to get the charge cancelled.

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]

painbl

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Have a look at the defence I wrote recently in basher52's thread, which also includes the added words we now recommend about the falsely added £60. You can copy the style of that one but change things like the £80 charge to £100, and the claimant's name and the details of what happened.

Also that one was about multiple PCNs so remove the plurals and that one involved a keeper Defendant who was NOT driving and denied it, so obviously you only do that (i.e. using the word 'deny') if it is true.

We hope your local court is NOT Swansea (reportedly, terrible Judges) so where?

Thanks for your reply.

I'm in the process of the first draft now.

I'm concerned that if I explain details of events I may place myself in a weak position. Due to the fact that I was honest in my first appeal to Excel. I don't think I'll be able to rely on POFA2012 because of this.

In regards to your advice about changing to £100 charge. They are charging £70 as the principal debt then £60 for the debt recovery costs.

My local court would be Birmingham.

Redx

It's worth trying to get a WS from the hotel about what happened

Think about your stance on the defence

Either you hide behind POFA and defend as keeper , but will struggle if asked if you are also the driver and you face the question

Or

You defend as a driver and so as a honest witness who isn't evasive when asked questions

You can't have it both ways , and a judge may reward honesty if you were both keeper and driver

Alternatively ,

however , if as defendant you are keeper but definitely not the driver then you get both options in one

painbl

Here's my first Defence draft. If you could have a read through it I'd be very grateful.

I'm was also thinking of adding Coupon-Mad's CRA2015 case examples on basher52's thread. Please let me know your thoughts?



IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LTD (Claimaint)

-and-

XXXXXXX (Defendant)

_________
DEFENCE
_________

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

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the driver, was parked on the material date at XXXX car park where the defendant and his family had stayed the previous evening at the XXXX hotel neighbouring the car park.

3. The particulars of claim state that the Defendant was in breach of contract for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. However, it is denied that the Defendant, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant , whether express, implied, or by conduct.

4. 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.

5. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to 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, particularly given the low lighting conditions and lack of lighting of the signs. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

6. In this respect and in all other facts - including the lack of prominence and clarity of the signage and the small font used to hide the onerous terms, the Supreme Court case of Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('the Beavis case') is fully distinguished.

7. 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.

8. The parking charge in question is for £70, yet the Claimant is trying to recover an additional £60 for 'Debt recovery costs'. The purported added 'costs' are disproportionate, a disingenuous double recovery attempt, vague and in breach of both the CPRs, and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Schedule 2 ('the CRA') 'terms that may be unfair'.

9. 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.

10. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported added £60 '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
11. 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."

11.1. 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.

11.2. I the Beavis case it was said on 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.

11.3. 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..."

11.4. 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 health 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."

12. In summary, it is the Defendants'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

painbl

Would anyone be able to check whether they think my defence is ok please?

I'd be grateful if you have any suggestions.

Le_Kirk

You seem to have covered all the bases but there are longer defences used in the thread by basher52 and you could also read the thread by CEC16 for a it more ammunition.

painbl

Hi guys. I'm ready to send my defence off to the court. I'm hoping its not too sketchy as I've pieced it together based on a number of other defences. If anyone thinks I should adjust anything please say. Thanks in advance.


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LTD (Claimaint)

-and-

XXXXXXX (Defendant)

_________
DEFENCE
_________

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

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the driver, was parked on the material date at XXXX car park where the defendant and his family had stayed the previous evening at the XXXX hotel neighbouring the car park.

3. The particulars of claim state that the Defendant was in breach of contract for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. However, it is denied that the Defendant, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant , whether express, implied, or by conduct.

4. 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.

5. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to 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, particularly given the low lighting conditions and lack of lighting of the signs. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

6. In this respect and in all other facts - including the lack of prominence and clarity of the signage and the small font used to hide the onerous terms, the Supreme Court case of Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('the Beavis case') is fully distinguished.

7. 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.

Costs on the claim – disproportionate and disingenuous
8. The parking charge in question is for £70, yet the Claimant is trying to recover an additional £60 for 'Debt recovery costs'. The purported added 'costs' are disproportionate, a disingenuous double recovery attempt, vague and in breach of both the CPRs, and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Schedule 2 ('the CRA') 'terms that may be unfair'.

9. It is trite law that non-existent and untrue 'legal costs' are also unrecoverable. 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. 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. Many informed Court Court Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts, such as these cases, struck out in recent months without a hearing, due solely to the pretence of adding 'damages' blatantly made up out of thin air.

(a) In Claim number F0DP163T on 11th July 2019, District Judge Grand sitting at the County Court at Southampton, struck out a overly inflated (over the £100 maximum Trade Body and POFA 2012 ceiling) parking firm claim without a hearing for that reason.

(b) In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor 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. These include a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) where the abuse is inherent in the business model.

12. The Order was identical in striking out all such claims without a hearing. - The judgment for these three example cases 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 ParkingEye 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. 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...''

13. 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.

14. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported added £60 '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
15. 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."

15.1. 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.

15.2. In the Beavis case it was said on 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.

15.3. 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..."

15.4. 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 health 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 CRA 2015 is against this claim
16. 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 75% 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.

16.1. 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.''

16.2. 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...''

16.3. 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.

16.4. 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.

16.5. 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.''

16.6. Consumer notices - such as car park signs - are not excused by the CRA 'core exemption'. The CMA Official Government Guidance to the CRA says: ''2.43 In addition, terms defining the main subject matter and setting the price can only benefit from the main exemption from the fairness test ('the core exemption') if they are transparent (and prominent) – see part 3 of the guidance.'' and at 3.2 ''The Act includes an exemption from the fairness test in Part 2 for terms that deal with the main subject matter of the contract or the adequacy of the price, provided they are transparent and prominent. (This exemption does not extend to consumer notices but businesses are unlikely to wish to use wording that has no legal force to determine 'core' contractual issues).'' The parking industry is the exception to this rule because they have no consumer 'customers' yet are consumer-facing. Their intention is very clearly in many cases (including this case) for a consumer not to see the onerous terms hidden in their notices and it is averred that no regard is paid to consumer law.

16.7. The definition of a consumer notice is given at 1.19 and the test of fairness is expanded at 1.20: ''A consumer notice is defined broadly in the Act as a notice that relates to rights or obligations between a trader and a consumer, or a notice which appears to exclude or restrict a trader’s liability to a consumer. It includes an announcement or other communication, whether or not in writing, as long as it is reasonable to assume that it is intended to be seen or heard by a consumer. Consumer notices are often used, for instance, in public places such as shops or car parks as well as online and in documentation that is otherwise contractual in nature. [...] Consumer notices are, therefore, subject to control for fairness under the Act even where it could be argued that they do not form part of the contract as a matter of law. Part 2 of the Act covers consumer notices as well as terms, ensuring that, in a broad sense any wording directed by traders to consumers which has an effect comparable to that of a potentially unfair contract term is open to challenge in the same way as such a term. There is no need for technical legal arguments about whether a contract exists and whether, if it does, the wording under consideration forms part of it.''

17. 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''.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which 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.

21. 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, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

painbl

Would you say the defence from my previous post is ready to send?

Really would appreciate any comments.