County Court Letter

Toast299

Hello all, hoping or some advice. 
I received a county court claim letter as One Parking Solution submitted a claim form against me.
Long story short - I was visiting my partner's mother (who has a parking permit). I was in the house for a little while before I came out to display the visitor parking permit but in that time, I'd received a PCN.

I've checked the Newbies thread, submitted an SAR, wrote to the claimants legal rep to put the case on hold and completed the acknowledgement of service.
I suppose I'm looking for advice regarding my defence. Here's the current draft:

____________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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

1. The driver did not agree to pay within 28 days as stated in 4. in the Particulars of Claim.

2. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to 'Parking Charge(s)' incurred on [10/01/2017]. However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for these charges, in that they do not state what the terms of parking were, or in what way they are alleged to have been breached which fails to meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5. The particulars state 'The Defendant(D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle XXXXXXX at Makepeace Road 1-24'. This contradicts the copy of the parking charge notice the defendant received from the claimant following a subject access request. The copy of the parking charge notice received from the claimant states that the PCN was issued at 'site name: Makepeace Road 1-30'. In addition, the particulars state 'The PCN(s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C' which indicates 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.

3. 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. It is argued that the signage was not apparent and unclear with extremely small print as evidenced by the photographic evidence provided by the Claimant. Furthermore, the Defendant maintains that the signage makes no mention of the amount of time one may be given to park and display a parking permit before risking receiving a parking charge notice.

4. It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, and as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it had the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices on the date of the alleged contravention, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

5. The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant's position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.

6. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £173.79 to the original £100 parking charge. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

7. For all or any of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss the Claim in its entirety, and to award the Defendant such costs as are allowable on the small claims track, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14. Given that the claim is based on an alleged contractual parking charge of £100 - already significantly inflated and mostly representing profit, as was found in Beavis - but the amount claimed on the claim form is inexplicably £273.79, the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

8. Given that it appears that this Claimant's conduct provides for no cause of action, and this is intentional and contumelious, the Claimant's claim must fail and the court is invited to strike it out.

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.Also, here's a copy of the claim form and also the parking sign referenced.Thanks,Toast

Toast299

Having formatting problems.

Here's the claim form:

D_P_Dance

That sign is more suited to commissioning an aircraft carrier than parking one's car imo, read this.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading

Surely no judge would expect anyone to read it. 

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.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 22nd January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 24th February 2020 to file your Defence.

That's just over a two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

When you are happy with the content, your Defence could be filed via email as suggested here:

1. Print your Defence.
   
2. Sign it and date it.
   
3. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
4. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
5. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
6. No need to do anything on MCOL, but do check it after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not, chase the CCBC until it is.
   
   After filing your Defence, there is more to do...
   
   
7. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire. Nothing of interest there. Just file it.
   
8. Wait for your own Directions Questionnaire from the CCBC, or download one from the internet - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-n180-directions-questionnaire-small-claims-track , and then complete it as described by bargepole in his 'what happens when' post linked from post #2 of he NEWBIES thread - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822/newbies-private-parking-ticket-old-or-new-read-these-faqs-first-thankyou"]
   
9. The completed DQ should be returned by email to the CCBC to the same address and in the same way as your Defence was filed earlier.
   
10. Send a copy of your completed DQ to the Claimant - to their address on your Claim Form.

Toast299

KeithP said:

With a Claim Issue Date of 22nd January, you have until Monday 10th February to file an Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

Having filed an AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 24th March 2020 to file your Defence.

That's over two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

When you are happy with the content, your Defence could be filed via email as suggested here:

Thanks - I filed the AOS 2 weeks ago. I'm really looking for advice on whether my defence is suitable/sufficient?

Toast299

D_P_Dance said:

That sign is more suited to commissioning an aircraft carrier than parking one's car imo, read this.



Surely no judge would expect anyone to read it. 

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.


Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Thanks for this - it's really useful

Coupon-mad

How many minutes (exactly) have they photographed the car stationary?
Is this Makepeace Rd Northolt?
https://goo.gl/maps/4K56ars8uPdRNdEm8

Toast299

Coupon-mad said:

How many minutes (exactly) have they photographed the car stationary?
Is this Makepeace Rd Northolt?

Yes it's makepeace road Northolt.
And they photographed the car for 15 minutes.

beamerguy

The sign is so bad, you would need to read it with binoculars.   One of the of the worse I've seen.
I'm sure a judge would agree with that as well.

I see it's DCBL bringing the claim.   Recently DCBL were badly spanked in court

RESIDENTIAL CASE ..... VCS LOST
VCS passed the case to DCBL who in turn passed it to Elms Legal who sent their rep to court
A DISASTER FOR ELMS LEGAL
Sheffield County Court, 2pm, 28/01/20 Judge Heppell
Full report in POST # 110 here
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76779349#Comment_76779349"nofollow" href="https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal/p1" title="Link: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal/p1">https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal/p1
See post # 14 by coupon-mad which you add to your defence.  All the other dodgy legals add £60 so you change £60 to £98.  DCBL has no legal authority to add £98, this is MEGA abuse

Toast299

beamerguy said:

The sign is so bad, you would need to read it with binoculars.   One of the of the worse I've seen.
I'm sure a judge would agree with that as well.

I see it's DCBL bringing the claim.   Recently DCBL were badly spanked in court

RESIDENTIAL CASE ..... VCS LOST
VCS passed the case to DCBL who in turn passed it to Elms Legal who sent their rep to court
A DISASTER FOR ELMS LEGAL
Sheffield County Court, 2pm, 28/01/20 Judge Heppell
Full report in POST # 110 here

DCBL are scamming you and the court saying the debt is £198 ..... THEY LIE and that is abuse of process

ABUSE OF PROCESS
See post # 14 by coupon-mad which you add to your defence.  All the other dodgy legals add £60 so you change £60 to £98.  DCBL has no legal authority to add £98, this is MEGA abuse

Thank you. I'm really grateful for everyone's help so far. 

Forgot to say that one parking solution complied with the SAR. They sent me:
- the original pcn
- photos of my car
- that crystal clear photo above of the parking sign
- my previous appeal in which I told them who I was visiting and that the person had a visitor's permit which they could easily confirm
- a letter before claim from 2017 (which I never received). Wouldn't put it past them to have not actually sent it 

Toast299

Just checking in again as I'm planning to submit my defence on Monday.
Here it is as it stands currently. I updated it based on the great feedback in this forum (please ignore the no.1 at paragraph 11- formatting difficulties). Could anyone kindly weigh in on whether it's good enough to submit? Thanks

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

         2. The driver did not agree to pay within 28 days as stated in 4. in the Particulars of Claim.

         3. In addition to the 'parking charge', the Claimant, or their legal representatives, has artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £98.79 which has not                      actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery.                         Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

            4. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to 'Parking Charge(s)' incurred on [10/01/2017]. However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for             these charges, in that they do not state what the terms of parking were, or in what way they are alleged to have been breached which fails to meet the requirements of                  Practice Direction 16 7.5. The particulars state 'The Defendant(D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle XXXXXX at Makepeace                  Road 1-24'. This contradicts the copy of the parking charge notice the defendant received from the claimant following a subject access request. The copy of the parking                charge notice received from the claimant states that the PCN was issued at 'site name: Makepeace Road 1-30'. In addition, the particulars state 'The PCN(s) was  issued on private land owned or managed by C' which indicates 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.

           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. It is argued that the signage was not apparent and unclear with extremely small print as evidenced by the photographic evidence                      provided by the Claimant. Furthermore, the Defendant maintains that the signage makes no mention of the amount of time one may be given to park and display a parking permit before risking receiving a parking charge notice.

       6. It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking                      charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, and as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it had the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices on the date of the alleged contravention, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

           7. The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant's position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking  rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and  circumstances.

          8. For all or any of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss the Claim in its entirety, and to award the Defendant such costs as are allowable on the small claims track, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14. Given that the claim is based on an alleged contractual parking charge of £100 - already significantly inflated and mostly representing profit, as was found in Beavis - but the amount claimed on the claim form is inexplicably £198.79, the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

         9. Given that it appears that this Claimant's conduct provides for no cause of action, and this is intentional and contumelious, the Claimant's claim must fail and the court               is invited to strike it out.

           10. as in post#14 (from paragraph 6 onward) by Bargepole - it's unfortunately too long for me to be able to post here apparently