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

railwaytaverncustomer

should I remove para 6?

Coupon-mad

No, but remove the word judgement from it (an appeal decision by PPC staff is certainly not a 'judgement' or 'adjudication' or anything that has clout!).

I also saw you have the annoying typo about their name in there that far too many people do. The company name is Premier Park Ltd. Please remove other versions and check your facts and details are all correct for your case.

railwaytaverncustomer

Left 2 bad reviews for pub earlier explaining parking nonsense. They sent me a message via facebook within minutes. !!!!!!. Shame they didn't reply last week .

Cheers coupon mad.

I don't really understand what para 6 says. is it saying "I appealed but haven't seen result therefore its pointless?"

railwaytaverncustomer

Other than that is the defence good enough in your opinion?

May not even need it now If pub sorts it out. Part of me wants to go to court now. Maybe get some costs from them, loss of earnings etc.

Coupon-mad

I don't really understand what para 6 says. is it saying "I appealed but haven't seen result''

Puts the C in a bad light, shows they breached the CoP and failed the pre-action protocol for debt claims which is all about 'narrowing the issues' and making efforts to resolve a dispute out of court. Your Judge might take it into account in the list of their failures.

Do not say 'several' signs!

it also states on several signs

Maybe instead: 'The only wording that can be read on the sparsely placed signs is ...'

Get rid of your 9 and 9.1 (entirely) and replace it with the usual point about no landowner or proprietary interest, as I think you are missing it at the mo?

railwaytaverncustomer

OK guys/gals,
so last night I left 2 pretty damning reviews on trip advisor and the google business page for the pub in question. Within 20 minutes the pub replied to my earlier messages on facebook! About bloody time.

Someone then called today and said usual stuff about "not owning car park etc", "parking isn't free, it's refunded"
He said he would contact PPC to see if ticket could be cancelled. Did not promise anything. Said there was a 28 day limit for cancelling.
I said the landowner can tell the PPC not to pursue me in the Courts up to the hearing date.
He's going to call me tomorrow to let me know what PPC says. Hopefully I will get something in writing.

So bad reviews was what got their attention in the end.


I've made the changes coupon mad suggested and have tidied up formatting etc. So here's the last draft hopefully. Shame it may not be used now.

Thanks again everybody. I very much appreciate your help.
I'd still like to make a donation to the group or a charity if you prefer for all your help.

And finally apologies if I've posted too much, I know you're trying to be efficient with your reading/replying. Cheers.

Draft 3:
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 Railway Approach car park 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 Park Ltd 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 clearly one for patrons of the pub next to it as it has a very large sign relating to the pubs new menu visible from the road. It also states clearly on 2 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, which is the supposed “contravention” the Defendant is being claimed against for. 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 the 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. It is mounted on the passengers side of the wall 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 decision was provided. As a result, an appeal could not have been made to POPLA.

7. The Claimant has spent well over a 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 or later £160.

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. 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 ’costs’ of £60, which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.

9.1 These have been variously described as ‘initial legal costs’ or 'contractual costs' (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).
9.2 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 total sum minus court fees 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.

9.3 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...''

9.4 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."

9.5 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.

9.6 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.

10. 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.

10.1 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 9.

11. 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.
11.1 Premier Park Ltd is not the lawful owner of the land.
11.2 Absent a contract with the lawful owner of the land being produced by the Claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful owner of the land, I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus standi to bring this case.

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
Date
Signed

Egbert_Nobacon

Hope the cancellation comes through for you.

Can’t understand why pubs want to drive away custom and risk bad reviews.

It is admirable that you are thinking of a donation.

My gripe is that charity CEOs seem to be on 6 figure salaries rather than money going to where it is needed.
Therefore my suggestion would be to your local hospice.

Redx

agreed

I was talking to s Stroke patient yesterday , who started off raising money for the Stroke Association but the donations just went into the big pot and it didnt help local sufferers, so apparently she now raises money for a local Stroke charity where all the money goes to those who need it and not the directors or silly schemes.



Frankly it makes me sick to see the money wasted every ten minutes on the same mind numbing tv adverts for anything and everything because you know that they only get a fraction of the money raised, plus most of the so called Z list celebrities dont do it for nothing !!

rant over

Coupon-mad

Remove this (below) as this is not from the latest version of the end wording, show in post #14 of the Abuse of Process thread by beamerguy:

9.5 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.

9.6 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.

And don't use these words if you were the driver...IMHO these words overstep the mark:

10. 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.

And as it is Premier Park, the same advice applies as was posted on the other two Premier Park defences being worked on earlier today, about emailing a second attachment with the defence.

If you search & read the other 2 threads then you can use their defences as a guide for what to remove and edit in your draft to improve it further.

railwaytaverncustomer

OK, I've removed 9.5 + 9.6 and have swapped para 9 for the para 9 in the post you referred too:

9. 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.

I have also removed para 10.

Thanks.