County Court Claim

Coupon-mad

Exactly.  A contract and consumer notices must be prominent otherwise there is no agreed contract at all, and no possible breach.  

fckcpm

A good result! I’ve managed to get someone to send me a picture of the sign. 

fckcpm

KeithP said:

fckcpm said:

Redx said:

When out driving you park in a bay on a side street , the sign says free for 1 hour , no return for 2 hours , you as the driver are deemed to have accepted the terms of the prominent unwordy sign , the contract , by the act of parking there. Breach it and your vehicle may get a PCN.  From a mobile CEO in a uniform !!

There is no written contract that needs signing , unlike a rental agreement contract , traffic chaos would reign if all drivers were signing written contracts everywhere they went !!

So as mentioned earlier , look for signs , read them , because the act of Parking binds you to the terms and conditions on the sign

Most people who get prosecuted or get a penalty notice on the public roads are flouting the signs , doing 30 mph on a signed 20mph side road , driving the wrong way on a one way street after passing a no entry sign , driving in a signed bus lane in rush hour , our lIves are governed by signs , contracts etc , not many contracts are written and signed by both parties on paper !!

Think about it !!

Ps , I was explaining this recently to my grand daughter who recently passed her test , works in Asda for now and wanted to park on site.  A Parking Eye site

Private parking companies issue between 5 and 10 million PCNs per annum for contractual breach of signs , never mind what local authorities issue as well

Redx said:

When out driving you park in a bay on a side street , the sign says free for 1 hour , no return for 2 hours , you as the driver are deemed to have accepted the terms of the prominent unwordy sign , the contract , by the act of parking there. Breach it and your vehicle may get a PCN.  From a mobile CEO in a uniform !!

There is no written contract that needs signing , unlike a rental agreement contract , traffic chaos would reign if all drivers were signing written contracts everywhere they went !!

So as mentioned earlier , look for signs , read them , because the act of Parking binds you to the terms and conditions on the sign

Most people who get prosecuted or get a penalty notice on the public roads are flouting the signs , doing 30 mph on a signed 20mph side road , driving the wrong way on a one way street after passing a no entry sign , driving in a signed bus lane in rush hour , our lIves are governed by signs , contracts etc , not many contracts are written and signed by both parties on paper !!

Think about it !!

Ps , I was explaining this recently to my grand daughter who recently passed her test , works in Asda for now and wanted to park on site.  A Parking Eye site

Private parking companies issue between 5 and 10 million PCNs per annum for contractual breach of signs , never mind what local authorities issue as well

 I clearly did breach the ‘contract’ but would you still advise presenting a defence?

Wait a minute. You need to get that idea out of your head.

If you saw no signs then you had no opportunity to agree any contract.

If you didn't agree any contract, how do you think it is possible to breach that contract?

Thanks again KeithP. I’ll rephrase that: I had no opportunity whatsoever to agree any form of contract therefore I couldn’t have breached it. I attached a photograph of the sign here as I will do when I present my evidence, it had no prominence at all and was practically invisible at night when the event took place. There was a lack of adequate lighting completely contrary to the example case the claimant claims was a success, the sign in that case was far more prominent. In this case, the font was far too small to read from inside a moving or stationary vehicle, and that’s only if the light (or lack of) allowed me to see the sign to begin with. They’re not getting away with this, especially since there was nothing suggesting I was entering a no parking zone as I turned into the street. 

Coupon-mad

It would have been far more useful for that someone NOT to just send a close up of a legible sign. 

You want the opposite evidence as well, a view from the entrance and sweeping view along a road or two showing NO LINES AND SIGNS.  And all such photos should have the date/time embedded by a phone autostamper app.

Obviously you want pics on the dark with no flash. And a short video.

Castle

The picture of the sign says £100 is the parking charge; (in other news the credit card charge of £1.50 was banned in January 2018 and 0845 numbers banned in June 2014).

fckcpm

So I’ve finished writing my defence, now a quick question. I have looked at the newbie thread again and thanks to KeithP I understand I must submit my defence to the email he provided. Question: Do I also have to click on the ‘Start Defence’ button on MCOL, I read somewhere that simply submitting the defence to the listed email in the thread is the correct procedure. I just want to be sure seeing as my brain is fried from all the reading.

KeithP

After having filed an Acknowledgment of Service, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

I don't believe there is anything anywhere that says you should update MCOL after filing an AoS.

In fact Bargepole's 'what happens when' post linked from the NEWBIES thread says...

Do NOT put anything in the 'Defence and Counterclaim' text box, not even a full stop.

That post goes on to say...

...trying to fit it [the Defence] in the online box destroys the formatting, and makes it hard for the Judge to read.

fckcpm

Hi all, I’ve pasted my redacted defence below. Does anyone have any feedback?

 1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

The points below are within the scope of the Defendant’s own knowledge and honest belief. Whilst parts of this defence may be familiar to the Claimant and/or their legal representatives, it would not be right for a litigant-in-person to be criticised for using all relevant resources available.  It is noted in any case, that these Claimants use third party pre-written templates as standard.  This statement was prepared by the Defendant specifically for this matter and unlike the Claimant’s case, it deals properly and individually with the facts, the alleged contract, and the quantum.  The contents of this defence represent hours of research by the Defendant, in order to grasp some knowledge of alien concepts of law, codes of practice and procedures relating to the specific area of Parking Charge Notices (‘private PCNs’).    

2. In relation to parking on private land, it is settled law that for any penalty to escape being struck out under the penalty rule, it must be set at a level which already includes recovery of the costs of operating the scheme.  However, this Claimant claims (as in this case) a sum of £264 for this PCN, including £70 worth of ‘contractual costs’.  This figure is a penalty, far exceeding the charge in the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 case and falling foul of the binding authority in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores [2012] EWCA Civ 1338.  In the 2012 case, the Court of Appeal held that £135 would be an unrecoverable penalty but a claim for the PCN itself would not [ref: para 419].   Thereafter, ParkingEye quietly dropped their ‘PCN plus indemnity costs’ double recovery business model and pursued £85 in the Beavis case, where it was determined by the Supreme Court that a significant justification for that private PCN was that it already included all operational costs [ref: paragraphs 98, 193 and 198].   

3.The Claimant’s notices/demands vaguely allude to unidentified sums being claimed ‘on an indemnity basis’. Such imprecise terms 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.  Claims pleaded on this basis by multiple parking firms have routinely been struck out ab initio in various County Court areas. Recent examples include multiple Orders from District Judge Fay Wright sitting at Skipton County Court, with similar Orders seen in the public domain from Deputy District Judge Josephs sitting at Warwick County Court, District Judge Taylor at the Isle of Wight and Deputy District Judge Colquhoun sitting at Luton County court in March 2020.  All were summarily struck out, solely due to parking firms falsely adding £60 to inflate the claim. In this case, the sum is greater at £70. 

4. 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.

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must not park in the no parking zones, giving no definition of where the no parking zones are nor indicating which zones are suitable parking zones as there are no road markings set out.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. Furthermore there is no signage upon the entrance. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary 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.

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 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. 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 CPR 3.4

KeithP

That Defence doesn't look anything like the template Defence found here - 
Suggested template defence to adapt for all parking charge cases where they add false admin costs

It also makes no mention of any of the circumstances surrounding the alleged parking event.

Redx

Seems to me that you copied an old defence that pre dates the defence template by coupon mad !!

On 26 July you said you could easily submit her template defence , which several people told you to adapt , not done

It is rare for anyone to check and approve an off piste defence on here , we offer opinions , not professional legal advice

My advice is adapt the template defence by coupon mad , then post the adapted paragraphs only below , so not the while thing

For parking claims , nobody uses the online start Defence box , email is the preferred method of submission , as a pdf attachment