PCN "cancelled" by Creativecarparks but enforced by CE

Coupon-mad

As long as the PCN number matches, you have proof the PCN was cancelled.

The BPA need to investigate. Send them the evidence, this week, then move on to drafting a defence.

Think about a counter-claim of £500 for data misuse, DPA 2018 breach, and harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act, as per Ferguson v British Gas. If you decide to counter claim then we can help you word it, and it just goes under your defence, following on from it, but separately signed and dated by you.

Costs £25 or so as a court fee to counterclaim for a few hundred. Your case lends itself to that possibility if the email trail/screenshot has the right PCN number.

POPLA should be ashamed. This is a farce, you showed EVIDENCE and the parking firm didn't!

wistful

Coupon-mad. Thanks again for your help. I have email evidence that I sent the PCN number to the member of staff at ToppsTiles, who then responded by email to me saying that the PCN had been cancelled by creativecarpark and attached a screenshot of the generic cancellation email or text they received from creativecarpark in response to their request that the PCN be cancelled. The attached screenshot itself is brief and simply but clearly says:

clients.creativ
ecarpark.co.uk
says

We will no longer contact the driver
about this PCN.
Please contact the driver and let
them know the ticket has been
cancelled.

The screenshot does not have any identifiable PCN number attached but has been attached to the email from ToppsTiles to me as evidence that ToppsTiles had received notification from creativecarpark that creativecarpark stated they had cancelled the PCN in response to ToppsTiles contacting creativecarpark re my PCN and providing creativecarpark with my PCN number, which is clearly identified in the email trail. The PCN is recorded once, in the first email from me to ToppsTiles. In my view there is only one reasonable explanation for the email and screenshot attachment from ToppsTiles. Creativecarpark did inform them by text or email that my "ticket has been cancelled."

Following your advice yesterday I have already emailed BPA asking them to investigate and I have forwarded the original email trail to them with a copy of the screenshot attached. I am furious about the whole matter and I am very pleased you take the same view of events as I do and yes, I would seriously consider a counter claim provided there is no major additional financial risk to me in making a counter claim? I have already spent a considerable amount of time on this including drafting my defence which took many hours yesterday and which is outlined below.

My draft defence:

I am XXX, Defendant in this matter and I assert that the Claimant has no cause for action for the following reasons:

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

2. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that the claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXXX XXX when it was parked at XXX XXX.

3. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. 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. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. Further, 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. 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. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

6.
REBUTTAL OF CLAIM

The defendant complained to the retailer XXX XXX about the PCN and was told by the retailer it would be cancelled if the defendant provided the retailer with the PCN number. The defendant emailed the PCN to the retailer. The retailer contacted the operator of the car park with the PCN number to request for the PCN to be cancelled. The retailer emailed the defendant to report that the car park operator had contacted them stating that the PCN had been cancelled and attached to the email a screenshot from creativecarpark stating, “clients.creativecarpark.co.uk says we will no longer contact the driver about this PCN. Please contact the driver and let them know the ticket has been cancelled”. The defendant has email evidence of all of this. Despite this, payment was pursued by Civil Enforcement, which is effectively the same company as creativecarpark. In email correspondence with the defendant, creativecarpark have refused to confirm that they informed the retailer that the PCN had been cancelled, despite receiving email evidence from the defendant that this was the case. Creativecarpark have refused to engage with the defendant on this matter. They have not denied informing the retailer that they stated, “the ticket has been cancelled”. An appeal to Civil Enforcement on the grounds that the PCN had been cancelled by creativecarpark, was unsuccessful. An appeal to POPLA was unsuccessful too, despite the fact that POPLA acknowledged that the defendant had produced evidence which, “shows that Creativecarparks.co.uk stated that the ticket had been cancelled.”

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 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £80, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

9. 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.

nosferatu1001

EVERY para is numbered
A defence is a series of arguments, Your "6" is fodder for a witness statement, should it get that far

I would add at the top that this PCN was cancelled on X date by the landholder creative car parks.

6) Could read

6) The D is not liable for any sum, as the parking charge notice ref xxxxxx was cancelled on y date by the landholder .... Once the charge notice was canelled, no debt can possibly be due.

wistful

Thanks Nosferatu1001. I do not know what creativecarpark's official or legal role was in this matter. I don't think they owned the land. It seems they were the point of contact for the retailer for issues relating to management of the land. Should I say landholder or land manager?

I will insert "This PCN was cancelled on 6th February 2019 by the land manager". Should this precede my point 1?

I will remove the whole of my point 6 and replace with

6. The defendant is not liable for any sum, as the parking charge notice ref xxxxxx was cancelled on y date by the land manager Craetivecarpark. Once the charge notice was cancelled, no debt can possibly be due.

The_Deep

[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]

Castle

wistful wrote: »

Thanks Nosferatu1001. I do not know what creativecarpark's official or legal role was in this matter. I don't think they owned the land. It seems they were the point of contact for the retailer for issues relating to management of the land. Should I say landholder or land manager?

Normally the landowner will have a contract with Creative Car Park which in turn will have a contract with CEL. (So Creativecarpark will be the car park manager).

wistful

Thanks for the further replies. I have just received an email from a Gemma at BPA who is going to investigate the matter further.

Coupon-mad

OK, so as long as you have done the AOS and know your defence deadline and won't miss it, I suggest we wait and see what Gemma Dorans says and if the BPA are useless, I will happily write you a robust counter claim.

Revenge is a dish best served cold.

And no, there is no financial implication, you are allowed to counter claim and it will stop CEL being able to avoid the case continuing to a hearing, as you then hold the key and YOU can force a hearing for YOUR claim, even if they try to skedaddle and discontinue!

Your costs would be the filing fee and (eventually, if CEL do not settle) you'd then pay another £25 (the hearing fee if they are not proceeding - if they are, THEY pay the hearing fee!) and you add them to your claim to get from CEL.

Sadly, I think the BPA will get this cancelled and spoil your fun. Let us know!

Half_way

wistful wrote: »

Half_way. I'm fairly sure that the car park is for a multiple retail outlet

it would give great satsifaciton if you could draw the landowner into the as well.
Much as a fightback against the parking company would be great, going for the landowner who allowed the pakring company would be poetic justice.
Large corporations should have looked into what PPCs are, they should have legal teams/resoources etc etc

wistful

Thanks both. I will keep you posted. ��