CPM poor signage - claim form

SlashDot

Hi there,

 

Hoping you guys can help me with a Claim Form I have received following a PCN from CPM. Backstory:

·         The Driver in a company car parked in a private car park in Jun-18

·         CPM had taken over management recently and there was no CPM sign at the entrance to the car park, only the original sign of the land owner (with no CPM mention – for which I have photos)

·         Ticket received from CPM for £100 for 1. not displaying a valid permit and 2. unauthorised parking

 

·         Formal demand for £100 went to the fleet manager in Jul-18 who forwarded it to the Keeper (I hope that’s the right term?), also stated that the charge could rise to £149 if it went unpaid

·         Letter was sent to CPM to challenge the PCN on the basis of poor signage and no details about CPMs contract with the landowner

·         Response in Aug-18 stating that the appeal was declined as there was a sign (one!) within the car park detailing the parking conditions (not much bigger than an A4 with small text, so it had not been noticed). Demand for the full £100 was made.

 

·         Received a pre-action protocol letter in Jan-19 stating an outstanding balance of £160 (no mention of where the additional £60 came from)

 

·         Received a LBC for £160 from Gladstones in Aug-19 - £60 claimed for the time spent & resource facilitating the recovery charge

 

·         Received a Claim Form in Feb-20 issued on the 7th Feb claiming the £100 PCN, £60 contractual costs, £20 interest, the court fee and an additional £50 legal representatives’ costs

·         AoS done on 16th Feb

Having looked through some posts and the FAQ, I have made a first draft of my defence that I will include in another post.

Thank you and I really appreciate any help you can provide!

SlashDot

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
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 vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant was the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay.

3. 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.

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

5. In addition, the claimant had failed to maintain proper signage at the entrance to the site given that it nearly entirely been removed, was obscured by foliage and in was in direct contrast with another larger sign implying the land owners operated the parking site.

6. 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.

7. The Notice To Keeper does not specify the period of parking, as required by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Section 8 (2)(a)&(b) and therefore cannot hold the keeper liable.

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 £60 for ‘contractual costs’, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

9. The claim includes an additional £50 for ‘Legal representative’s costs’, such costs are not permissible under Civil Procedure Rules – Part 27.

10. 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 Civil Procedure Rules 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

KeithP

SlashDot said:

·         Received a Claim Form in Feb-20 issued on the 7th Feb...

·         AoS done on 16th Feb

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th February, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 11th March 2020 to file your Defence.

That's just 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:

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 the NEWBIES thread - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64350585#Comment_64350585
   
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.

The_Slithy_Tove

SlashDot said:

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant was the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay.

But you've said it was a company car, so you can't be the registered keeper.

D_P_Dance

That extra £60 is almost certainly unlawful, read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

and report Gladstones to the SRA

https://www.sra.org.uk/

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.

beamerguy

The £60 is abuse of process and it's a Gladstones scam.
They have been told by the courts it is not allowed:-
Gladstones told by Judge .... added £60 NOT LAWFUL
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76692888#Comment_76692888"nofollow" href="https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76756261#Comment_76756261">https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76756261#Comment_76756261"nofollow" href="https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75937581/#Comment_75937581" title="Link: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75937581/#Comment_75937581">https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75937581/#Comment_7593758

Another dodgy so called legal, BWLegal tried this scam and were well and truly spanked in court.
READ THIS:  

Britannia Parking v Crosby - Southampton judgment - attach to defences or witness statements

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6107909/britannia-parking-v-crosby-southampton-judgment-attach-to-defences-or-witness-statements/p1?new=1

SlashDot

The_Slithy_Tove said:

SlashDot said:

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant was the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay.

But you've said it was a company car, so you can't be the registered keeper.

Thanks for that, I've adjusted the text "The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, was parked on the material date in a marked bay." 
Or do I need to state who the driver was if it was me?

SlashDot

Thanks again all. I've restructured it to include the Abuse of Process remarks:

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
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 vehicle, registration XXXX, was parked on the material date in a marked bay.

3. 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.

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

5. In addition, the claimant had failed to maintain proper signage at the entrance to the site given that it had nearly entirely been removed, was obscured by foliage and in was in direct contrast with another larger sign implying the land owners operated the parking site.

6. 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.

7. The Notice To Keeper does not specify the period of parking, as required by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Section 8 (2)(a)&(b) and therefore cannot hold the keeper liable.

8. 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. On the 10th of June 2019 in case F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing: District Judge Taylor stated "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 judgement in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum (in this case, an additional £60 for ‘contractual costs’, for which no calculation or explanation is given) 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. The claim includes an additional £50 for ‘Legal representative’s costs’, such costs are not permissible under Civil Procedure Rules – Part 27.

10. 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 Civil Procedure Rules 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

1505grandad

Check out a new suggested template defence to adapt for all parking charge cases where they add false admin costs - posted by C-m a few days ago with instructions and link to template:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1

SlashDot

1505grandad said:

Check out a new suggested template defence to adapt for all parking charge cases where they add false admin costs - posted by C-m a few days ago with instructions and link to template:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1

Thanks very much for this
@1505grandad !!!

SlashDot

1.        The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that the driver of the vehicle entered into any contractual agreement, whether express, implied, or by conduct, to pay a ‘parking charge’ to the Claimant.

 

 

2.       In relation to parking on private land, it is settled law from the Supreme Court, that a parking charge must be set at a level which includes recovery of the costs of operating a scheme.  However, this Claimant is claiming a global sum of £255.60. This figure is a penalty, far exceeding the £85 parking charge in the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis case. 

 

 

3.       The global sum claimed is unconscionable and it was not shown in large lettering on any consumer signs, and it is averred that the charge offends against Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘the CRA’), where s71(2) creates a duty on the Court to consider the fairness of a consumer contract.  The court’s attention is drawn (but not limited to) parts 6, 10, 14 and 18 of the list of terms that are likely to be unfair.

 

 

4.       Even if the Claimant had shown the global sum claimed in the largest font on clear and prominent signs - which is denied - they are attempting double recovery of costs. The sum exceeds the maximum amount which can be recovered from a registered keeper, as prescribed in Schedule 4, Section 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the POFA’).  It is worth noting that in the Beavis case where the driver was known, the Supreme Court considered and referred more than once to the POFA.

 

 

5.       Claims pleaded on this basis by multiple parking firms have routinely been struck out ab initio in various County Court areas in England and Wales since 2019.  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 .

 

 

6.       Applications by AOS member parking firms to try to reach the usually low threshold to set aside multiple strike-out orders have been reviewed by more than one area Circuit Judge, including His Honour Iain Hughes QC, occasioning District Judge Grand at Southampton to hear submissions from a barrister on 11th November 2019. The court refused to set aside the Orders and, tellingly, no appeal was made. 

 

 

7.       The Judge found that the claims - both trying to claim £160, with some ten or more similar cases stayed - represented an abuse of process that ‘tainted’ each claim.  It was held to be not in the public interest for a court to let such claims proceed and merely disallow £60 in a case-by-case basis, thus restricting and reserving the proper application of the relevant consumer rights legislation only for those relatively few consumers who reach hearing stage.  That Judgment is appended (Appendix C).

 

8.       The CCBC and/or the allocated Court Judge is invited to read the Appendices at the earliest opportunity.  The Defendant avers that parking firm claims which add a duplicitous ‘costs’ sum to the parking charge are now easily identified to be unlawful. Such claims are against the public interest, requiring no further assessment, and listing such cases for trial should be avoided.  The Court is invited to exercise its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4 to strike out this claim, which is entirely tainted by abuse of process and breaches of the CRA.

 

 

9.       Should this claim continue, the Claimant will no doubt try to mislead the court by pointing to their Trade Association ‘ATA’ Code of Practice (‘CoP’) that now includes a hastily-added clause 'allowing' added costs/damages.  The Defendant points out that the CoP is a self-serving document, written in the parking firms’ interests. Further, the ‘admin fee’ model was reportedly invented by a member of the British Parking Association Board, Gary Osner, whose previous firm, Roxburghe (UK) Limited, folded after being declared ‘unfit’ by the Office of Fair Trading who refused to renew their consumer credit licence due to ‘unfair and misleading’ business practices. Mr Osner states in an article that has been in the public domain since 2018: ''I created the model of ‘admin fees’ for debt recovery because ticket value was so low that nobody would make any money. Parking is business and business is about money, after all.''  

 

 

10.   The two competing ‘race to the bottom’ ATAs have engineered a veil of legitimacy to protect this industry for too long.  They are not regulators and have failed consumers so badly, that Parliament is currently working on replacing them with a new CoP overseen by the Secretary of State, following the enactment of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019.  Many courts have now recognised that a predatory parking firm Claimant using unfair and predatory business practices and inflating their claims with false ‘admin fees’, is not the ‘innocent party’ in a dispute.  In stark contrast to the BPA Board member’s mindset, the will of Parliament as set out in the new 2019 Act is very much consumer-focussed, aiming for:  ''good practice...in the operation or management of private parking facilities as appears to the Secretary of State to be desirable having regard to the interests of persons using such facilities.''  

 

11.   In the alternative, the defence is prejudiced and the court is invited to note that, contrary to the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, the Letter Before Claim omitted evidence of any breach and failed to append the wording of the sign or consumer notice.  Further, the Particulars of Claim are embarrassing and incoherent, lacking specificity re the location of the event and status of the contracting parties and failing to detail any conduct or liability that could give rise to a cause of action.  There is insufficient detail to ascertain the nature, basis and facts of the case but the sum claimed includes unrecoverable costs/damages and is clearly an abuse of process.

 

 

12.   The court is invited to note that the Beavis case would not have passed had it been pleaded in damages by ParkingEye, and the penalty rule applies to charges that are penal or unconscionable in their construction.  The Supreme Court held at [14] ‘‘where a contract contains an obligation on one party to perform an act, and also provides that, if he does not perform it, he will pay the other party a specified sum of money, the obligation to pay the specified sum is a secondary obligation which is capable of being a penalty.’’  And at [99] ‘‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged.’’

 

 

13.   Unlike in this case, ParkingEye demonstrated a commercial justification for their £85 parking charge which included all operational costs and was constructed in such a way and offered on such ‘brief and clear’ signs with terms set in the interests of the landowner, that they were able to overcome the real possibility of the charge being struck out as penal and unrecoverable.  The unintended consequence is that, rather than persuade courts considering other cases that all parking charges are automatically justified, the Beavis case facts and pleadings set a high bar that other claims fail to reach.  Unusually for this industry, it is worth noting that ParkingEye do not add false ‘debt letter costs/damages’ to their parking charges and as a consequence, their own claims have escaped any reports of being summarily struck out.

 

 

14.    This Claimant has failed to plead their case, or to set out their terms or construct their contractual charges in the same way as in Beavis and the penalty rule remains firmly engaged.  Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of an overriding legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach.  The intention cannot be to punish drivers nor to present a motorist with concealed pitfalls or traps, nor to claim an unconscionable total sum.

 

 

15.   Should this poorly pleaded claim not be summarily struck out for any/all of the reasons stated above, the Defendant sets out this defence as clearly as possible in the circumstances, insofar as the facts below are known.

 

16.  The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, was parked on the material date in a marked bay. The claimant had failed to maintain proper signage at the entrance to the site given that it had nearly entirely been removed, was obscured by foliage and in was in direct contrast with another larger sign implying the land owners operated the parking site.

 

17.    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.

 

 

18.   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''.

 

 

19.    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 XXXXXXX).  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.

 

 

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

 

21.    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.

 

22.   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.

 

 

23.   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:                              …………………………….…………………………….