Premier Park Ltd and BW Legal. PCN for Whole period not paid for in pub car park.

railwaytaverncustomer

Hi all, here's my first draft of defence. Many thanks to Debunked for most of it is copied from him.
The bit I've changed is para 2.3.

I did not admit to being driver in any appeal or correspondence however, but did claim to be a patron along with others on said date. Main part of defence in fact.

Is there any way to donate to the group of people in this forum helping with all these PCN's?

Thanks as always. I will continue reading other defences. I cannot find much in forum relating to "overstay" or "whole period not paid for" however.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

PREMIER PARK LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

---

DEFENCE

---

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle registration number xxxxxxx on the said date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. It is denied that the Defendant has any "outstanding liability" or ‘parking charges’ to pay. The defendant was not driving the vehicle at the time of the PCN being issued, no keeper liability, and has never parked in the car park before.
2.1 The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
2.3 The car park in question is obviously one for patrons of the pub next to it as it has several signs relating to the pubs new menu, it also states on several signs "customers retain receipt for full refund". Parking is therefore free for patrons of The Railway Tavern, East Grinstead. It is therefore impossible
for any "overstay" or "whole period not paid for" to occur. The defendant has a bank statement proving patronage at the establishment in question for the relevant date of the supposed "contravention". Note the date on the bank statement is 3 days after supposed contravention due to the card payment processors delay.


3. The Particulars of Claim fail to indicate whether the defendant is the registered keeper or the driver. 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.

4. The Claimant also stated in the Particulars of Claim that ‘they allowed the defendant 28 days to pay the PCN’. However, the claimant has failed to prove or find who the driver was, so at the original stage in the first 28 days the defendant was not thought to be part of the process and simply
disreguarded the correpondence simply as spam letters for money.


5. The Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land under the correct address, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.


6. 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 sign at the car parks entrance is mounted on a short wall on the left hand side roughly
at knee height and is not easily seen by anyone driving into the car park. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.


7. 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 'terms that may be unfair'.

8. 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.

9. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred an additional £60 in damages or "contractual costs" to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The arbitrary addition of a fixed sum purporting to cover 'damages/costs' is also 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.

9.1. 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 to the 'parking charge' as if they are additional losses.



The Beavis case is against this Claim
10. Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('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, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending upon the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters.

10.1. 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''. Ad at [199]: ''What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 [...] is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests.''

10.2. 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.''

10.3. 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...''


10.4. 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
11. 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' (further, the ceiling for a 'parking charge',
as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is
well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.



The Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('the CRA') is against this claim
12. Further, the purported added 'costs' are disproportionate, vague and in breach of the CRA 2015 Schedule 2 'terms that may be unfair'. This Claimant has arbitrarily added an extra 60% of the parking charge in a disingenuous double recovery attempt that has already been exposed and routinely disallowed by
many Courts in England and Wales. It is atrocious that this has been allowed to continue unabated for so many years, 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.

12.1. 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.''

12.2. That decision in Wales was contested in a N244 application by VCS, but the added £60 was still disallowed on 30 Oct 2019. District Judge Jones-Evans stated that even in cases parking firms win, he never allows the £60 add on, and despite parking firms continuing to include it in their Particulars,
most advocates have now stopped pushing for it at hearings. The Judge said that a contract formed by signage is a deemed contract, which the motorist does not have the opportunity to negotiate. That, and the fact that there is no specified sum on the signage, means that the extra £60 cannot possibly be
recoverable. He said that the £60 was clearly a penalty, and an abuse of process. The considered sum in that case was reduced to £100 with a full case hearing to follow, but the £60 would not be awarded under any circumstances, and further, he ordered that the Claimant must now produce a statement of
how they pleaded claims prior to Beavis, and subsequently.

12.3. 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.

12.3.1. Cases summarily struck out in that circuit included BPA members using BW Legal's robo-claim model and IPC members using Gladstones' 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...''

12.3.2. 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.

12.3.3. 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 Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2 (the 'grey list' of terms that may be unfair)
paragraphs 6, 10 and 14.

12.3.4. At the hearing, the Judge refused their request to appeal. It was successfully argued that the parking firm's consumer notice stood in breach of the CRA 2015, Schedule 2 (the 'grey list' of terms that may be unfair) paragraphs 6, 10 and 14. Using the statutory duty upon the Courts to consider
the test of fairness and properly apply schedule 2 of the CRA 2015 it was irrelevant whether or not the consumers' defences had raised it before, which they had not. The same issues apply to this claim.

12.3.5. 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.''

12.4. 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.

12.5. 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.''

13. 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 multiple parking ticket claims from various firms all due
to the adding of the false £60 costs to £100 parking charge, that already indisputably (in law and case law) includes those costs.

13.1. The Judge 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 Orders striking out several £160 parking claims without a hearing, the Judge stated that he had
''considered S71(2) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 for the fairness of the contract terms and determined that the provision of the additional charge breached examples 6, 10 and 14''.

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. 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.


16. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant
has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

17. The defendant has supplied an attachment of the ruling of the case Premier Park v Shaw, dated the 6th of December 2019, where Deputy District Judge Roberts, struck out the case on the basis of the Abuse of Process. It was as follows:

17.1 Before Deputy District Judge Josephs sitting at the County at Warwick, The Justice Centre Leamington Spa, Newbold Terrace, Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, CV32 4EL.
Upon considering the Court file IT IS ORDERED THAT
The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. Reasons. 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, which expressly approved the parking charge because it included costs of administration. Additionally, S71(2) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires the Court to consider the fairness of a contract terms and the provision for additional charges falls into
examples 6,10 and 14 of the indicative list of unfair terms in Schedule 2 of that Act. 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. This order has been made by the Court of its own initiative without a
hearing pursuant to Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 and a party affected by the order may apply to have it set aside, varied or stayed not more than 7 days after the date the order was served upon that party.
Dated 5 December 2019
The court office at the County Court at Warwick, The Justice Centre Leamington Spa, Newbold T


18. 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.





Statement of Truth:

I confirm that the contents of this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Name xxxxxxxxx
Signature xxxxxxxxx
Date xxxxxxx

railwaytaverncustomer

I also amended para 6

Coupon-mad

If ANPR has added the minutes on arrival to the exit time, and alleged that is a mere 18 minutes, yet you paid for your hour's actual parking in between, you need to search the forum for:

NCP 0 taxman 1 and read the defences that talk about pressing the green button.

railwaytaverncustomer

Knew I was forgetting something. BPA grace periods etc.

KeithP

At the start of para 17.1 - word 'Court' missing from the phrase 'sitting at the County at Warwick'.

Para 17.1 seems to end rather abruptly.
Is 'Newbold T' the start of the Warwick County Court address - Newbold Terrace?

railwaytaverncustomer

Ticket was valid from 11:45 till 12:45.

Car entered at 11:43, exited at 13:02.

with 10 min grace at end of parking contract and contract starting at 11:45 (when green button pressed) would have been 7 mins overstay still. Totally justified by having to walk to the car, getting ticket and then queuing at bar for a refund for said ticket, then finally returning to car and leaving.

I know there can be a separate grace for entering the car park, looking for spaces etc. But have no definitive amount of time. Could be argued another 10 mins however.
Could also argue that person who purchased ticket was different from driver, driver was looking for spaces whilst a ticket was being purchased by passenger.
That would give me some more wiggle room between time car entered and green button was pressed.

railwaytaverncustomer

Well spotted KeithP

railwaytaverncustomer

Could add another para like this:

The PPC alleges that the car was parked for 1 hour and 18 minutes in total, this is based off when the car was seen by ANPR cameras entering and exiting the car park. ANPR times can be inaccurate or badly synchronised with ticket machines however. Evidence of perfect synchronisation and accurate timing will be needed to prove their points.
The parking ticket was not actually purchased by the driver, but by a passenger whilst the driver looked for an appropriate space. A reasonable grace period upon arrival at the car park should be given in order to find a space and read any signs relating to any contracts, a reasonable time for this would be 10 minutes. This should be in addition and separate from the minimum of 10 minutes grace period for leaving the car park as outlined in the BPA's own guidance on grace periods. Premier Park Limited is indeed a member of the BPA and should therefore follow these guidelines.
The total alleged period not paid for is 18 minutes, well under the 20 total minutes of grace period anyone parking in a BPA approved operators car park is entitled to.

beamerguy

We all know the failures of ANPR, even the BPA knows but where money is involved, so is muck.
That's the pub and the PPC.

You say it was paid and I assume the car park was crowded and you had the wait to get out.

You see ANPR is not a movie and as the cameras are pointed to number plates and as there are just two pictures there system cannot prove THE REASON the grace period was used.

railwaytaverncustomer

OK, draft 2

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

2. The facts are that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt from a driver's alleged breach of contract, entering XXXXXX on XX/XX/XXX for a period alleged to have lasted for some 18 minutes, which involved minimal stopping well within
a reasonable period of grace

3. At the material time, the Claimant operated strictly subject to the October 2015 British Parking Association ('BPA') CoP, which stated:
“Grace Period:
3.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.

3.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”

3.3 Further, and in support of the submission that it is reasonable to conclude that the grace period should certainly be more than a mere eighteen minutes, the Defendant has found a BPA article published in 2013 so Premier Parking Limited would be expected to have regard to it, being a BPA member at the time.
The article is by Kelvin Reynolds, Director of Policy and Public Affairs, who, despite encouraging a ''war on the non-compliant motorist'' was honoured by the BPA for his outstanding contribution to parking with a Lifetime Achievement Award.

3.4 Mr Reynolds' article had this to say about grace periods, which shows that the Defendant was not (in the BPA Trade Body's view) 'a non-compliant motorist': Our guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether
they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,” he explains.“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”
Kelvin continues: “…If a motorist decides they do not want to comply and leaves the car park, then a reasonable period of time should be provided also.”

3.5 The car park in question is obviously one for patrons of the pub next to it as it has several signs relating to the pubs new menu, it also states on several signs "customers retain receipt for full refund". Parking is therefore free for patrons of The Railway Tavern, Railway Approach, East Grinstead.
It is therefore impossible for any "overstay" or "whole period not paid for" to occur. The defendant has a bank statement proving patronage at the establishment in question for the relevant date of the supposed "contravention". Note the date on the bank statement is 3 days after supposed contravention due
to the card payment processors delay.


4. 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. A small sign at the car parks entrance is mounted at knee height on the perimeter
wall on the left hand side and is not easily seen by anyone driving into the car park. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

5. 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. Any reasonably circumspect driver would be entitled to rely upon the BPA’s interpretation and not expect
to be penalised for the time taken to read the terms and conditions and make a decision on choosing to enter into an agreement.


6. Despite being afforded a method within which to appeal, the appeal was subsequently ignored despite acknowledgement of receipt and no notice of the judgement was provided. As a result, an appeal could not have been made to POPLA

7. The Claimant has spent over 1 whole year harassing the Defendant with ever increasing and intimidating demands pursuing this baseless charge, sending debt collector letters and causing the Defendant and their family significant distress, despite having no basis to charge £100

8. 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 and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

9. The Particulars of Claim state that 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. The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic
claims similar to this one. I believe the term for such behaviour is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest.

9.1 On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no
facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.’

10. In addition to the original PCN penalty, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added 'costs' of £60, which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.

10.1 These have been variously described as a 'BW Legal instructions fee' (in the pre-action exchange of letters) and/or a 'debt collection charge' (not part of any terms on signage and cannot be added, not least because it was never expended).
10.2 Suddenly in the particulars there is also a second add-on for purported 'legal representative costs of £50' on top of the vague £60, artificially hiking the sum to £218.64. This would be more than double recovery, being vague and disingenuous and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.

10.3 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 earlier General Judgment or Orders of DJ Grand, who (when sitting at the Newport
(IOW) County Court in 2018 and 2019) has struck out several parking firm claims. 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) yet the Orders have been identical in striking out both
claims without a hearing, 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 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...''

10.4 In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (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 v 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.''

10.5 Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs. Given the fact that BW Legal boasted in Bagri v BW Legal Ltd of processing 'millions' of claims with an admin team (and only a handful of solicitors), the Defendant avers
that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste Premier Parking Limited robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities.

10.6 According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.

11. The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.

11.1 The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) 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' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies
and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their
artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery as stated in paragraph 10.

12. 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 untrue in terms of the added costs alleged and the statements made, in trying to justify the unjustifiable.

13. 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.

14. 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.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date