BW Legal - CCJ - UK Parking Patrol - Defence help needed

nosferatu1001

Usual non response. 

Carry on according to the courts deadlines. Ignore theirs 

alefcp

nosferatu1001 said:

Usual non response. 

Carry on according to the courts deadlines. Ignore theirs 

Yes I intend to go all the way, my original query for finding a defence, do you reckon I can use the abuse of process route and say I did not enter into any contract therefore this is invalid 

Coupon-mad

Everyone here with a non-ParkingEye claim uses that template defence, so yes.

alefcp

hello guys how is my defence looking?

or shall i use the template one where i add in my own points about poor signage in #16 and 17?

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle registration number xxxxxx on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. It is denied that any 'parking charges’ are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety because no keeper liability, no cause for action against the defendant. The claimant has failed to show locus standi, the defendant does not believe they have a right to bring an action against anyone.

3. Accordingly, it is denied that the driver breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct as no enforceable contract offered at the time by claimant, no cause for action can have arisen.

4. The Claimant also stated in the Particulars of Claim that ‘the driver of the Vehicle agreed to pay the parking charge within 28 days of issue yet failed to do so’. However, the claimant has failed to provide evidence of that agreement and failed to identify who the driver that it is referring to.

5. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event hence incapable of binding the driver as the claimant failed to comply with International Parking Company Code of Practice ‘PART E Schedule 1 – Signage’.

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

7. 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 which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

8. CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

9. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

10. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

11. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

12. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

13. 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.

14. 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 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 by Judge Tailor and DJ Grand was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing and stating that: ''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...''

15. 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 mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

16. 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.

17. 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, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

Statement of Truth:

I confirm that the contents of this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Redx

Personally I would follow previous advice to use coupon mads template and post the adapted paragraphs for critique , but it's your choice (bearing in mind few people on here will comment about any defence) , unless it's parking eye ? In which case I would read and use the one posted by Bargepole this morning and adapt it (for a Parking Eye case only)

As it's UKPPO , it's use the coupon mad template

Either way , the statement of truth is incorrect , it changed a few weeks ago

alefcp

Redx said:

Personally I would follow previous advice to use coupon mads template and post the adapted paragraphs for critique , but it's your choice (bearing in mind few people on here will comment about any defence) , unless it's parking eye ? In which case I would read and use the one posted by Bargepole this morning and adapt it (for a Parking Eye case only)

As it's UKPPO , it's use the coupon mad template

Either way , the statement of truth is incorrect , it changed a few weeks ago

thank you, and its not parking eye, so i am going fown the route of abuse of process and poor signage, and is it this one now?

"

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

Umkomaas

12. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA 

This shows you've used an out of date defence. Just follow Coupon-mad and Redx's advice. 

Redx

I already pointed you at the correct statement of truth , try reading recent threads from 2020 with the regulars here posting updated advice and not old out of date ones , this process would then be a lot easier for you and us

alefcp

Redx said:

I already pointed you at the correct statement of truth , try reading recent threads from 2020 with the regulars here posting updated advice and not old out of date ones , this process would then be a lot easier for you and us

apologies i have seen where i have gone wrong,

I have 1 question, the defendant is named as my elderly mother who is the registered keeper of the car, however i intend to take this all the way to the end, i do not want her to attend any hearing or be in contact with anyone as her english is not on a conversational level and frankly she has no clue of what to do.

If it goes to a telephone hearing (most likely in these current times) I, as her son, am allowed to represent her? I just do not want her to be present during any of this

Redx

She would need to give you permission and you act as a lay representative , but she must be present in court or on the phone , so by your side or on the same conference call

Either way she must be present , or she can ask the Court to hear the case on papers