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

Coupon-mad

OK, best to show us the new draft. Also email Jon8838's judgment with the defence.

railwaytaverncustomer

NEWEST DRAFT

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 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. 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. 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. 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.
12.1 Premier Park Ltd is not the lawful owner of the land
12.2 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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

railwaytaverncustomer

OK guys, thanks for all the help. Is this defence good enough now? need to submit by tomorrow. Want to do today.
Hopefully won't be needed.

Thanks again.

railwaytaverncustomer

Pub has said they will be cancelling the ticket, but have nothing in writing yet. was promised something today. May just be leading me on.

beamerguy

railwaytaverncustomer wrote: »

Pub has said they will be cancelling the ticket, but have nothing in writing yet. was promised something today. May just be leading me on.

Give the pub your deadline or you will be requesting he will be your witness in court if he fails to stop it.

railwaytaverncustomer

Thanks Beamerguy. I'll send him a text now.

railwaytaverncustomer

The defence OK in your opinion? I'm not sure about para 2.

for a period alleged to have lasted for some 18 minutes, which involved minimal stopping well within a reasonable period of grace.


Should I not say "period alleged to have lasted 1 hour and 18 minutes" as that's the total time in the car park?

railwaytaverncustomer

Last draft hopefully.

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 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 in East Grinstead on xx/xx/xxxx 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 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.”

4 The car park in question is clearly one for patrons of the Railway Tavern pub 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.

5 The ANPR images only show the supposed times that the vehicle entered and exited the car park. Not the actual time that the car was parked for. The accuracy of these timings must also be proved by the Claimant.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are 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 park entrance is mounted at knee height on the perimeter wall. It is mounted on the passenger's 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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')'.

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.

11.1 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).

11.2 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.

11.3 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...''

11.4 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."

12. 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.
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'. It is submitted the Claimant is well aware of their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery as stated in paragraph 9.

13. 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 holder/owner of the land.
11.2 Absent a contract with the lawful holder/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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

railwaytaverncustomer

I printed, signed, scanned and emailed defence with along with pdf of Jon8838's judgement yesterday.

Got the automated response.

Will now check MCOL is updated.

Umkomaas

13. 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 holder/owner of the land.
11.2 Absent a contract with the lawful holder/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.

Something askew with your paragraph numbering.