County Court Claim - Defence stage - Incomplete number plate

Laith25

22.  Data Protection concerns
a) The registered keeper or driver had no idea about the ANPR surveillance and received no letters after the initial 'PCN', only a vague document which gave no indication as to what the alleged breach was. No photographic evidence of the terms supposedly on the car park signage has ever been supplied, not even in the postal PCN.
b) The Claimant is put to strict proof of any breach and of their decision-making in processing of the data and the human intervention in deciding to issue a PCN and why, as well as the reasoning behind trying to collect £182 instead of seeking to recover a modest charge, if it is their case that this sum went unpaid.
c) Under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Claimant is also put to strict proof regarding the reason for such excessive and intrusive data collection via ANPR surveillance cameras at a car park where there would likely be no vehicles unconnected to patrons, no trespass nor 'unauthorised' parking events.
d) It is one thing to install PDT machines, but quite another to run a hidden ANPR camera data stream alongside the PDT data stream, and then use one against the other, against the rights and interests of unsuspecting but circumspect visitors to GS Car Park, who get caught out by this trap.
e) Collecting vehicle registration data in order to inflate the 'parking charge' to £182 and write (weeks later) to registered keepers, whether they were driving or not, is excessive, untimely and intrusive to registered keeper data subjects.

23.  Denial of contract and denial of any breach, or liability
a) Due to the sparseness of the Particulars of Claim (POC) 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 registered keeper, or the driver of the vehicle breached any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

b) According to the POC the Claimants ANPR system captured a vehicle entering and leaving the site without a valid paid parking ticket, however, vehicle registration was correctly entered into their parking validation terminal so any perceived breach is denied.

24.   The Claimant’s signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, such that they would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and would also be considered void pursuant to Schedule 2 of the CRA. Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was entered into with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

25.  The Beavis case is fully distinguished and a more relevant list of binding Court of Appeal authorities which are on all fours with a case involving unclear terms and a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of an onerous parking charge, would include:

(i) Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 and (ii) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd  [1970] EWCA Civ 2, both leading examples of the ‘red hand’ rule - i.e. that an unseen/hidden clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and

(iii) Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000, where the Court of Appeal held that it was unsurprising that the appellant did not see the sign ''in view of the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the southern parking space''.

26.   Further and in the alternative, the Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or the necessary landowner authorisation to issue PCNs under these circumstances and to pursue keepers by means of civil litigation. 

It is not accepted that the Claimant has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, other terms (or instructions to cancel charges due to a surge of complaints) and there is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this particular Claimant (Companies House lists their company number as 05992210).  Any purported landowner 'contract' which fails to properly identify the two contracting parties and/or which is in any way redacted (including the signatories, which in some parking claims have been revealed not to be that of the landowner) should be disregarded, along with any undated and/or unsubstantiated records, documents, boundary maps or aerial views, or photos which are capable of manipulation.

 

27.  For any or all of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss this claim.

28.   In the matter of costs.  If the claim is not struck out, the Defendant seeks:

(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) the Court to reserve, assess and award the Defendant’s Summary Costs Assessment, to be filed and served at Witness Statement stage in anticipation of a typical late Notice of Discontinuance (‘NoD’) from this Claimant.

 

29.  At NoD stage, or at a hearing if the case proceeds that far, the Court will be taken to facts to support a finding of wholly unreasonable conduct by this Claimant.  Pursuant to CPR 46.5, whilst indemnity costs cannot exceed two thirds of the applicable rate if using legal representation, the Defendant notes that LiP costs are not necessarily capped at £19 ph.  The Defendant will ask for a fairly assessed rate for the hours spent on this case, referencing Spencer & anor v Paul Jones Financial Services Ltd.

 

30. In summary, the Claimant's Particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed. This Claimant knew, or should have known, that an exaggerated ‘parking charge’ claim where the alleged ‘debt’ exceeds the £100 ATA CoP ceiling is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the POFA and the CRA,  The Judge in the instant case is taken to the Appendices, demonstrating that several court areas continue to summarily strike out private parking cases that include an extravagant and unlawful costs sum.

 

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

 

Defendant’s signature:  …………………………….…………………………….               

Defendant’s name:        …………………………….…………………………….

Date:                              …………………………….…………………………….

Laith25

@Coupon-Mad... is the global sum being claimed the figure stated on the Court Claim letter minus Court Fee and Legal Representative Costs...? In my case this figure is £182

Le_Kirk

Recent examples are appended to this defence; a February 2020 Order from District Judge Fay Wright, sitting at Skipton County Court (Appendix A)  and a similar Order from Deputy District Judge Josephs, sitting at Warwick County Court (Appendix

Still a smiley, although it is now paragraph 5, you need to type it as Appendix B ) with a space.  It will probably be fine when you print, sign and scan.

Laith25

Guys is this good to go?

Coupon-mad

This Claimant is claiming a global sum of £60.  £182 ...

Is this correct, is it two ANPR in and out pics?  OPS often use CCTV, not ANPR:

The allegation appears to be based on images by the Claimant’s Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper 'parking without a valid paid parking ticket’.

Laith25

I will check if it’s an ANPR or CCTV but I have the images sent to me through the SAR i sent earlier.. that considering would you say this defence stands a reasonable chance? Thank you once again 

Coupon-mad

Yes, but I would remove #22 entirely as that's an old suggestion about data/ANPR that Judges don't take into account.

Laith25

Hey guys,
I have received a notice of discontinuation from the solicitors after submitting the defence. Am I right to think the CCJ has been dropped? Can I recover any costs incurred or is this not recommended?
Thanks

nosferatu1001

You are right in thinking the CLAIM has been dropped. "J" means judgement. You havent had a judgement yet. 
You can try to recover costs based on unreasonable behaviour, CPR27.14(2)(g). What unreasonable bejhaviour can you document?

Le_Kirk

Did you have a CCJ or just a claim letter from CCBC?  If you have received a notice of discontinuance from the solicitor it means the parking company have dropped the case.  Unless you have previously been to court for THIS case (check the case reference number) I doubt you have a CCJ.