county court defence: is it okay

jacqueh26

2 PCNS from premier parking solutions 7/4/2019  and 26/5/2019 from a car park in Exeter (NTKs attached)
county court claim and Notice of county claim issued both dated 13/11/2020 
my defense is in bold (the rest is the same as in the defense template on this forum)

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: xxxxxxx

Between

PREMIER PARKING SOLUTIONS 

(Claimant) 

- and -  

MISS XXXX                  

 (Defendant)

____________________

DEFENCE

____________________

1.       The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. 

As the registered keeper of this vehicle, I’m not admitting nor denying being the driver during this contravention, I do not know. I honestly do not recall this event. During the first contravention (dated 7/4/19) I had just been discharged from hospital after an operation- it’s very unlikely I would have been in the city centre for 4 hours.  I wrote a letter to the parking company to appeal this but never heard anything back. I do not know if I was the driver and or who was the driver was.

The second PCN  issued on 26/5/2020, was issued due to “session expired”.   The ticket purchased had been for a period of 2 hours for the duration of church service starting at 11am at a nearby church.   I’m a student doctor and I helped an elderly lady who collapsed on the pavement very close to the car park.  I left her in the care of paramedics when they arrived about 20 minutes later. As you can imagine, going over 2 hour a period was the last thing on my mind.  I moved to a different city a week after (I’m a medical student so move a lot for placement allocations) and therefore never received correspondence until about a year later at my current address.

 

4.  The Particulars of Claim set out an incoherent statement of case and the quantum has been enhanced in excess of any sum hidden in small print on the signage that the Claimant may be relying upon.  Claiming ‘costs/damages’ on an indemnity basis is stated to be unfair in the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance, CMA37, para 5.14.3.  That is the official Government guidance on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('CRA 2015') legislation which must be considered, given the duty in s71.  The Defendant avers that the CRA 2015 has been breached due to unfair terms and/or unclear notices (signs), pursuant to s62 and with regard to the requirements for transparency and good faith, and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 and 18 in Sch2.  NB: this is different from the UTCCRs considered by the Supreme Court, in that there is now a requirement for contract terms and notices to be fair.

5.       It is denied that the exaggerated sum sought is recoverable.  The Defendant's position is that this moneyclaim is in part/wholly a penalty, applying the authority in ParkingEye cases (ref: paras 98, 100, 193, 198) ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and para 419 of HHJ Hegarty’s High Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was set at £75 (discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment) then increasing ultimately to £135.  Much like the situation in this claim, the business model involved sending a series of automated demands to the keeper.  At para 419, HHJ Hegarty found that adding £60 to an already increased parking charge 'would appear to be penal' and unrecoverable.  ParkingEye had dropped this punitive enhancement by the time of Mr Beavis' famous parking event.

6.       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 the cost of their standard automated letter-chain.  It is denied that the Claimants have expended additional costs for the same letters that the Beavis case decision held were a justification for the (already increased from the discount) parking charge sum of £85.  

7. 

 

 

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 13th November, you had until Wednesday 2nd December to file an Acknowledgment of Service. Did you file an AoS by that day? For the moment I'll assume you did. Please confirm.

Having filed an AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 16th December 2020 to file your Defence.

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

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Those two paragraphs of your Defence you have written need re-writing the third person - in the style of the rest of the Defence - no use of the word 'I'.

Coupon-mad

PREMIER PARKING SOLUTIONS 

Is not the full name of the Claimant.  They have the word 'Limited' as well (second line in that claim form box).

jacqueh26

Coupon-mad said:

PREMIER PARKING SOLUTIONS 

Is not the full name of the Claimant.  They have the word 'Limited' as well (second line in that claim form box).

Ah yes, I will add this.  Thank you

jacqueh26

KeithP said:

With a Claim Issue Date of 13th November, you had until Wednesday 2nd December to file an Acknowledgment of Service. Did you file an AoS by that day? For the moment I'll assume you did. Please confirm.

Having filed an AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 16th December 2020 to file your Defence.

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

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Those two paragraphs of your Defence you have written need re-writing the third person - in the style of the rest of the Defence - no use of the word 'I'.

KeithP said:

With a Claim Issue Date of 13th November, you had until Wednesday 2nd December to file an Acknowledgment of Service. Did you file an AoS by that day? For the moment I'll assume you did. Please confirm.

Having filed an AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 16th December 2020 to file your Defence.

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

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Those two paragraphs of your Defence you have written need re-writing the third person - in the style of the rest of the Defence - no use of the word 'I'.

Hello thanks  for your response . Yes, I filed AoS on Nov 20th, also sent a SAR to PPS at the same time. 
I have rewritten the defense in 3rd person: 

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: xxx

Between

                                                                                  PREMIER PARKING SOLUTIONS  LIMITED

(Claimant) 

- and -  

MISS xxxx                       

 (Defendant)

____________________

DEFENCE

____________________

1.       The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. 

As the registered keeper of this vehicle, the defendant is not admitting nor denying being the driver during this contravention, they do not know and do not recall this event. During the first contravention (dated 7/4/19) the defendant had just been discharged from hospital after an operation- it’s very unlikely the defendant would have been in the city centre for 4 hours, 5 days after abdominal surgery.  The defendant wrote a letter to the parking company to appeal the PCN but never heard anything back.  The defendant denies knowledge of who the driver was.

The second PCN  issued on 26/5/2020, was issued due to “session expired”.   The ticket purchased had been for a period of 2 hours for the duration of church service starting at 11am at a nearby church.   The defendant is a student doctor and stopped to attend to an elderly lady who collapsed on the pavement very close to the car park.  The defendant left the elderly lady in the care of paramedics when they arrived about 20 minutes later.  As it may be expected, going over 2 hour a period was the last thing on the defendant’s mind.    The defendant moved to a different city a week after (As a medical student the defendant moves a lot for placement allocations) and therefore never received any correspondence until about a year later at the defendant’s current address.

Redx

Your mcol reference is showing on the scan of the claim form , so needs more redacting

There is no S in DEFENCE , change your keyboard and dictionary to UK English

I see they have inflated each PCN by at least £60 (the £120 recovery costs)  , not allowed , 2 PCN at say £100 is £200 when I was at school and using an abacus !!

Coupon-mad

Add 'alleged' here and change contravention to 'parking event', but otherwise it's ready to sign and date, and email to the CCBC email shown in the template defence sticky thread.

During the first alleged contravention  parking event,

jacqueh26

thank you  Coupon-mad and Redx for your advice. I really appreciate your advice.   I have a question : for the 1st pcn I have an idea who the driver may have been, I'm not close to them anymore but I do know their address, is it worth it naming them as the driver and then I'll just the 2nd PCN to fight and if it gets to it and I lose I will only have £200  to pay rather than £427 ?

KeithP

At this stage you are far too late for naming the driver to be useful.

You are the named Defendant. You have to defend the claim against you.
Of course part of your Defence for one of the events could be that you were not the driver, but that will only absolve you if they haven't complied with POFA such that the keeper can be held liable for the driver's actions.

jacqueh26

KeithP said:

At this stage you are far too late for naming the driver to be useful.

You are the named Defendant. You have to defend the claim against you.
Of course part of your Defence for one of the events could be that you were not the driver, but that will only absolve you if they haven't complied with POFA such that the keeper can be held liable for the driver's actions.

Thank you 😊 🙏🏾

Redx

jacqueh26 said:

thank you  Coupon-mad and Redx for your advice. I really appreciate your advice.   I have a question : for the 1st pcn I have an idea who the driver may have been, I'm not close to them anymore but I do know their address, is it worth it naming them as the driver and then I'll just the 2nd PCN to fight and if it gets to it and I lose I will only have £200  to pay rather than £427 ?

Good idea if it had been done prior to the court claim

No good whatsoever now that a court claim has been issued in your name , so missed opportunity