Excel - Set aside WON & CASE WON - Excel defeated AGAIN!

Le_Kirk

2.   It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle. However, over 55 months have passed since the alleged event and therefore, the Defendant cannot be sure who was driving on an unremarkable day so long ago.
3.   Therefore the The Defendant is unable to admit confirm or deny who was driving that he was the driver and therefore requires the claimant is put to strict proof to prove so. Furthermore upon receiving the aforementioned Notice of Keeper (NTK) from the Claimant, no person, who might have been the driver was able to identify confirm seeing a Notice to Driver (NTD) affixed to the vehicle in question.

2.   It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle. However, over 55 months have passed since the alleged event and therefore, the Defendant cannot be sure who was driving on an unremarkable day so long ago, therefore the Defendant is unable to admit confirm or deny who was driving that he was the driver. and therefore requires The claimant is put to strict proof to prove so. Furthermore, upon receiving the aforementioned Notice of Keeper (NTK) from the Claimant, no person, who might have been the driver was able to identify confirm seeing a Notice to Driver (NTD) affixed to the vehicle in question.

The word "therefore" is a conjunction and should be used to continue a sentence so no separate paragraph is needed.  Two alternatives suggested as above - don't forget to adjust all the subsequent paragraph numbers if you choose the one that removes (3).

milkybk

Spoke to court this morning - All files logged and ready for Judge. Double checked all dates etc to make sure they had to the correct ones. All good to go.

I'm oddly looking forward to it haha. The court hasn't confirmed whether the Claimant will be attending yet, I did ask on the phone.

They said the link for the hearing will be sent out nearer the time.

milkybk

Le_Kirk said:

2.   It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle. However, over 55 months have passed since the alleged event and therefore, the Defendant cannot be sure who was driving on an unremarkable day so long ago.
3.   Therefore the The Defendant is unable to admit confirm or deny who was driving that he was the driver and therefore requires the claimant is put to strict proof to prove so. Furthermore upon receiving the aforementioned Notice of Keeper (NTK) from the Claimant, no person, who might have been the driver was able to identify confirm seeing a Notice to Driver (NTD) affixed to the vehicle in question.

2.   It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle. However, over 55 months have passed since the alleged event and therefore, the Defendant cannot be sure who was driving on an unremarkable day so long ago, therefore the Defendant is unable to admit confirm or deny who was driving that he was the driver. and therefore requires The claimant is put to strict proof to prove so. Furthermore, upon receiving the aforementioned Notice of Keeper (NTK) from the Claimant, no person, who might have been the driver was able to identify confirm seeing a Notice to Driver (NTD) affixed to the vehicle in question.

The word "therefore" is a conjunction and should be used to continue a sentence so no separate paragraph is needed.  Two alternatives suggested as above - don't forget to adjust all the subsequent paragraph numbers if you choose the one that removes (3).

Hi @Le_Kirk - Thanks for this, well spotted! I've made amendments, great suggestions and they make sense. I also made some changes to point 10 below.

Please find below:

IN THE MILTON KEYNES COUNTY COURT

Claim No. XXX

BETWEEN:

Excel Parking Services Limited

Claimant

– and –

Defendant

XXX

__________________________________________________________

DRAFT DEFENCE OF XXX

_________________________________________________________

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. However, over 55 months have passed since the alleged event and the Defendant cannot be sure who was driving on an unremarkable day so long ago, therefore the Defendant is unable to confirm or deny who was driving and the claimant is put to strict proof. Furthermore, upon receiving the aforementioned Notice of Keeper (NTK) from the Claimant, no person, who might have been the driver was able to confirm seeing a Notice to Driver (NTD) affixed to the vehicle in question.

3.   The Defendant is unable to admit or deny that he was the driver and therefore requires the claimant to prove so. Furthermore upon receiving the aforementioned Notice of Keeper (NTK) from the Claimant, no person was able to identify seeing a Notice to Driver (NTD) affixed to the vehicle in question.

4.   The Claimant repeatedly refused to provide the Defendant with photographs etc when requested during the original appeal in 2017, therefore the Defendant cannot be sure of the full facts. When the Defendant discovered they had a surprise CCJ filed against themselves, they sent the Claimant's Data Protection Officer an official Subject Access Request on 04/072021. The Claimant also ignored a follow up email sent on 07/07/2021 from the Defendant, chasing the SAR. By law, the Claimant should have responded without delay and within one month of receipt of the request. 

5.  As the registered keeper, the first the Defendant heard about this alleged parking charge was via post when they received the aforementioned NTK. The only photos provided at the time on the alleged PCN were two blurry ones, where the car's registration plate could barely be made out. The claimant has demonstrated no evidence of non-payment of a parking ticket, nor failure to display, nor any breach of contract. In the Defendant’s appeal in 2017, and subsequent Subject Access request in 2021, the Claimant was asked to provide a PDT machine record from the day of the alleged parking charge, of all payments made. They did not supply this.

6.   On 16/09/2021 the Defendant received a SAR file from the Claimant, over 2 months after the SAR was requested. The Claimant stated they had never received the SAR from the Defendant. However the Defendant can provide date and time stamped emails proving that the request was sent. It contained no new information that pertains to the Defendant's defence.  

7.   This was a simple request and therefore there are no mitigating circumstances to allow for an extension, should one have been required. Therefore by law, the Claimant should have responded without delay and within one month of receipt of the request. Therefore the Claimant refused the Defendant's legal right of access, as they did in 2017 during the Defendant's original appeal.

8.   Furthermore, a file sent from the Claimant in the SAR documents was for a “Notice of change of legal representation”. The Claimant ticked box C of this form, declaring they had served the Defendant of the claim with notice of this change, which they did not. They signed this document, therefore declaring it as truth. I believe that this, along with my Witness Statement and Supplementary Witness, show  that this is further proof of a pattern of deceitful and illegal behaviour from the Claimant. The Claimant has continuously attempted to hamper and mislead the Defendant and therefore subsequently the Court. Therefore their actions could be considered contempt of court. 

9.   The photos the Claimant has provided in their witness statement are of signage in daylight on completely different dates, potentially over 4 years since the alleged offence.  As can be seen on the PCN car photos, it was extremely dark when the alleged event took place. Therefore these signs will not have been as clear or as easy to spot, if they were even present in 2017.

10.   In the overdue SAR received 16/09/2021, there are two photos of the car’s registration plate, which can clearly be made out, unlike those on the original NTK in 2017. These clearer images were not provided at the time of the 2017 appeal, neither was any of the requested information. As has already been mentioned, the Defendant admits they were the registered keeper of the vehicle in these new photos. However, as mentioned in Point 2 of this defence, the Defendant is therefore still unable to confirm or deny who was driving and the claimant is put to strict proof.

11.   The aerial view they Claimant has created shows just one PDT machine (no proof it was working) and a couple of 'entrance signs' and a single ANPR sign but zero 'information signs', none whatsoever. Therefore this cannot be considered evidence of an agreed contract by the driver.

12.   The Defendant has been hounded and harassed by a bombardment of ‘debt recovery’ letters. It should also be pointed out that the Defendant cannot be held liable, due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4

13.  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.

14.   It is denied that the exaggerated sum sought is recoverable.  The Defendant's position is that this money claim 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.

15.   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.  

16.   The Claimant cannot be heard to base its charge on the Beavis case, then add damages for automated letter costs; not even if letters were issued by unregulated 'debt recovery' third parties.  It is known that parking firms have been misleading the courts with an appeal at Salisbury Court (the Semark-Jullien case) where the Judge merely reset an almost undefended case back for a hearing.  He indicated to Judges for future cases, how to consider the CRA 2015 properly and he rightly remarked that the Beavis case was not one that included additional 'costs' per se, but he made no finding of fact about the illegality of adding the same 'automated letter costs' twice.  He was not taken by either party to Somerfield in point #5 above and in any event it is worth noting that the lead Southampton case of Britannia v Crosby was not appealed.  It is averred that District Judge Grand's rationale remains sound, as long as a court has sufficient facts to properly consider the CRA 2015 s62, 63 and 67 before turning to consider the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Sch4 ('the POFA').

17.   Pursuant to Sch4 of the POFA at 4(5), the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper, even in cases where a parking firm has complied with its other requirements (denied in this case).  It is worth noting that even though the driver was known in Beavis, the Supreme Court considered the POFA, given that it was the only legislation specifically dealing with parking on private land.  There is now also the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 with a new, more robust and statutory Code of Practice being introduced shortly, which evolved because the two Trade Bodies have failed to properly govern this industry.

The ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 case is distinguished

18.   Unlike in this case, ParkingEye demonstrated a commercial justification for their £85 private PCN, which included all operational costs, and they were able to overcome the real possibility of the charge being dismissed as punitive and unrecoverable.  However, their Lordships were very clear that ‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged’ in such cases.  

19.   Their decision was specific to what was stated to be a unique set of facts: the legitimate interest/commercial justification, the car park location and prominent and clear signs with the parking charge itself in the largest/boldest text.  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 (and in particular, the brief and very conspicuous yellow/black signs) set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.

20.   Without the Beavis case to support the claim and no alternative calculation of loss/damage, this claim must fail.  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.  

21.   The Supreme Court held that the intention cannot be to punish a motorist - nor to present them with concealed pitfalls, traps, hidden terms or unfair/unexpected obligations - and nor can the operator claim an unconscionable sum. In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of the tests in Beavis.

22.   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 Sch2 of the CRA.  Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen, known or agreed.

23.   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 (the ‘red hand rule’ case) and

           (ii)   Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd  [1970] EWCA Civ 2,

Both leading authorities confirming that an unseen/hidden clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and:

           (ii)    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''.  In many cases where parking firm Claimants have cited Vine in their template witness statements, they have misled courts by quoting out of context from Roch LJ, whose words related to the Respondent’s losing case, and not from the ratio.  To pre-empt that, in fact Miss Vine won because it was held as a fact that she was not afforded a fair opportunity to learn of the terms by which she would be bound.

24.   Fairness and clarity are paramount in the new statutory CoP being finalised by the MHCLG and this stance is supported by the BPA and IPC alike. In the November 2020 issue of Parking Review, solicitor Will Hurley, the Chief Executive of the IPC Trade Body, observed:  'Any regulation or instruction either has clarity or it doesn’t. If it’s clear to one person but not another, there is no clarity. The same is true for fairness. Something that is fair, by definition, has to be all-inclusive of all parties involved – it’s either fair or it isn’t. The introduction of a new ‘Code of Practice for Parking’ provides a wonderful opportunity to provide clarity and fairness for motorists and landowners alike."   The Defendant's position is that the signs and terms the Claimant is relying upon were not clear, and were in fact, unfair and the Beavis case is fully distinguished.

25.   In the alternative, the Claimant is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the relevant land to the Claimant.  It is not accepted that the Claimant has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints.  There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this Claimant to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this Claimant has standing to enforce such charges by means of civil litigation in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.

In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

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

       (b) The Defendant therefore asks the Court to consider his Schedule of Costs.

       (c) that any hearing is not vacated but continues as a costs hearing, in the event of a late      Notice of Discontinuance.  The Defendant seeks a finding of unreasonable behaviour in the pre-and post-action phases by this Claimant, and will seek further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

27.   The Defendant invites the court to find that this exaggerated claim is entirely without merit and to dismiss the claim. 

Statement of Truth:

I, XXXX, the Defendant, believe that the facts stated in this draft defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed: ___XXXX__

Dated: ____18/09/2021___________

milkybk

Still no email from court with link - will chase tomorrow. Seems like something you would send out at least a week in advance..

So I've written myself out a list to glance at during the hearing:

• Introduce self
• Explain case briefly
• N244 application summary - whole of CPR13
• Set aside will centre around CPR 13.2
• NTK and owner of vehicle admitted in 2017 - driver liability disputed and therefore required to be proved by the claimant.
• Explain different documents the judge should have and why
• Point out claimant attempt to mislead Defendant and court (straight to CPR13.3)
• Evidence showing communication with them clearing pointing out CPR 13.2

Explain the order you would like to go through them and why:

• N244
• Timeline/Chronology – background
• Witness Statement
• Claimants Witness Statement - key points
• My supplementary witness statemen in rebuttal to their conjectural claims.
• Draw attention to breach of their own rules and the law
• Point out missteps by the claimant in their Witness Statement – ensure to mentioned erroneous and conjectural comments in particular
  
• If successful – Schedule of costs

I have a question: In the unfortunate (and unlikely) case a Set Aside hearing fails and it moves to CPR13.3 and a defence hearing. What happens if you lose that one? Do you just have to pay up to the Claimant? Is the CCJ wiped or you get the double whammy of paying cost plus a CCJ?

Coupon-mad

If the Judge considers CPR 13.3 instead then he/she would, if they agreed you have prospects of defending the case, order a new hearing, to hear the actual claim.  And you would first have the chance to file and serve a defence and WS and evidence.

This upcoming hearing is ONLY to hear your application and your arguments as to why the CCJ should be set aside and if you get past that line then the CCJ is gone.  After that, you are at ordinary defence stage as if the CCJ never happened, with a hearing ahead of you.

milkybk

Coupon-mad said:

If the Judge considers CPR 13.3 instead then he/she would, if they agreed you have prospects of defending the case, order a new hearing, to hear the actual claim.  And you would first have the chance to file and serve a defence and WS and evidence.

This upcoming hearing is ONLY to hear your application and your arguments as to why the CCJ should be set aside and if you get past that line then the CCJ is gone.  After that, you are at ordinary defence stage as if the CCJ never happened, with a hearing ahead of you.

Ok. But if you lost set aside and then lost the subsequent claim case too and had to pay, would the CCJ stand as well? Just interested to know.

Le_Kirk

If you lost the set-aside hearing, the CCJ would stand.  You have already lost the underlying case, that is why you have the CCJ.  You only get a chance to defend it if the set-aside is won.

milkybk

Le_Kirk said:

If you lost the set-aside hearing, the CCJ would stand.  You have already lost the underlying case, that is why you have the CCJ.  You only get a chance to defend it if the set-aside is won.

Okay makes sense. Crazy that it can be considered you lost a case even though you never knew you were in one. But at least the set aside process is there for these situations.

Will update tomorrow guys! Court confirmed hearing link will be sent 3:30pm today, they hadn't heard if Claimant was going or not yet.

Jenni_D

Just to note: even if you lose the set aside it still doesn't mean you have to pay the underlying CCJ. In fact there'd probably be nothing to gain by paying it - it likely wouldn't help your credit record as the CCJ would simply be marked Satisfied if you paid it, it wouldn't be removed. (Winning the set aside means it would be removed and the whole claim would revert back to the beginning).

milkybk

Jenni_D said:

Just to note: even if you lose the set aside it still doesn't mean you have to pay the underlying CCJ. In fact there'd probably be nothing to gain by paying it - it likely wouldn't help your credit record as the CCJ would simply be marked Satisfied if you paid it, it wouldn't be removed. (Winning the set aside means it would be removed and the whole claim would revert back to the beginning).

Well I'll be disappointed in myself if I don't get it set aside haha. I think I've put the work in, with lots of help from everyone here and I'm prepared and confident. Whereas every dealing I've had with Excel they've made slip ups and seem generally unsettled.

Let's get the W.

Can you appeal a set aside hearing if you think the judge missed stuff etc? Again, don't think it will be needed, just wondering. All a new experience!