CST Law Claim on behalf of Euro Car Parks for £1.2K for parking on private land

D_P_Dance

Why are you offering them £600?  You could win this,   

Redx

It's usually a case that the claimant wants payment in full and the defendant wants to pay nothing , so it's rare or unheard of for a settlement figure to be reached at mediation

Coupon-mad

D_P_Dance said:

Why are you offering them £600?  You could win this,   

Hmmm, but isn't this the one with 64 PCNs? 

Very difficult to get any Judge onside, IMHO, unless you can evidence that ECP were wrong and that you did have authority to park there and were not just blagging it and relying on silly advice from others to ignore it and carry on parking.

D_P_Dance

Imo they would be mad not to acceopt £600 but I would be inclined to go to court.

Coupon-mad

I don't think they will accept but as this one is so high I'd suggest Mediation would be worth getting involved in as the OP is going to have an uphill task to make the Judge realise they are not the bilker/trespasser that 64 PCNs makes it seem at first glance.

Yawn1

Coupon-mad said:
Hmmm, but isn't this the one with 64 PCNs? 

8* PCNs potentially - but that will be confirmed once ECP respond to SAR.

D_P_Dance said:

Imo they would be mad not to acceopt £600 but I would be inclined to go to court.

More than likely I'll end up in court anyway tbh. If it were £200 I could see them withdrawing but the amount may make it worth the gamble.

Coupon-mad

I hope you’ve seen the vital public Government Consultation and email to your MP that we are all discussing?  Please share on other forums, social media and certainly with your MP:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6286801/government-consultation-re-private-parking-charge-levels-august-2021-please-bookmark-this-thread/p1

We are calling for everyone to do a full and robust response by email to the MHCLG, attaching evidence of what happened to you and what you think is wrong about £100 charges and fake debt recovery ‘fees’ that no PPC actually incurs or pays. 

We also need people to contact their MP to ask questions about why the MHCLG appear to have performed a U-turn on their March promise to cap parking charges, and why instead they propose to fund the race to court at £70 a time from victims

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78517562/#Comment_78517562

To anyone reading this: PLEASE DO THIS IF YOU WANT CONSUMER VOICES TO OUTWEIGH THE PARKING INDUSTRY’S GREED. WHICH SEES THEM TRY TO CLAIM MORE THAN THE LAW ALLOWS, FROM A REGISTERED KEEPER,

I just looked at the POFA Explanatory Notes (part of the legislation):

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/notes/division/5/1/3/3

221.Paragraph 4 provides that the creditor has a right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the relevant vehicle if the conditions set out in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 are satisfied. The creditor is not obliged to pursue unpaid parking charges through this scheme and may seek to do so through other means but they may not use the scheme provided for here to secure double recovery of unpaid parking charges (paragraph 4(6)), nor will they have the right to pursue the keeper, as opposed to the driver, of the vehicle where they have sufficient details of the driver’s identity. The right to reclaim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle keeper does not apply in cases where the vehicle has been stolen before it was parked, (paragraphs 4(2) to (3)), or in certain circumstances where the vehicle in question was a hire vehicle (paragraph 4(7)). The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (paragraph 4(5)).

Yawn1

Just purely for info. An overhead picture of the car park taken in 2017

Yawn1

Hello all,

I have put together a skeletal draft of my defence in which I intend to file by Monday next week. I was advised that based on my issue date / AOS I have until 4pm Tues to submit my defence.

Constructive feedback is welcome. This is by no means a final draft, but I thought it would be good to get views ahead of time.

Before anyone asks - Yes I am aware of the MHCLG consultation and the upcoming deadline. 

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. The defendant admits to being the registered keeper during the period of when the alleged breaches are claimed to have occurred. However it is not admitted that the registered keeper was driver during the alleged breaches.

 

3.  

(a)    It is admitted the vehicle was registered to the defendant, but not that the defendant was driver during the instances of alleged contravention. The defendant cannot recall using the private car park managed by the claimant.

(b)    The defendant denies entering into a contract, and consequently any liability for alleged contract breaches.

(c)     The particulars of the claim are vague and lack sufficient detail needed to produce a comprehensive defence. The Particulars of Claim fail to note the number of breaches that are alleged to have occurred, the alleged dates and respective time periods. It is therefore requested that in the event the claimant produces further details of their claim, the defendant is provided an opportunity to respond to all details.

(d)    During the period of alleged breaches the vehicle was accessible to at least two other drivers. The claimant has not provided any evidence or proof of who the driver was at the instances of alleged breaches. The claimant is put to strict proof of who the driver was at the time of the alleged events.

(e)    During a visit for research purposes after receipt of the claim the defendant noticed that the car park where alleged contraventions are claimed to have occurred lacks clear and visible signage of the terms and conditions to inform drivers that they are potentially engaging in a contract with the claimant, and potentially liable for any breaches.

(f)      Prior to the receipt of the Claim Form, the Defendant was not notified of any allegations of contract breaches and had no engagement with the claimant. No letters were received by the defendant from the claimant to inform of allegations of contract breaches and facilitate a resolution.

(g)    The claimant has failed to adhere pre-action protocol and provide the defendant of any notice that a claim would be raised against. Consequently, provision of opportunities to address the claimant’s allegations and/or reach a resolution prior to raised county court claim.

(h)    The claimant states they manage has failed to provide any evidence that they are the landowner of the site they claim to manage, nor that they are acting on behalf of the landowner.

(i)      The car park managed claimant is situated in front of a residential building where residents, or visitors of residents, are likely to park in order to gain access.

(j)      The car park lacks any visible payment facilities, such as a parking meter, to provide visitors with an indication of costs, the controlled hours, and a physical payment method option.

 

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.  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').

8.  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

9.       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.  

10.       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.

11.   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.  

12.   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.

13.       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.

14.   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.

15.   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.

16.  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:

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

(b) 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.

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

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this 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.

Coupon-mad

Looks ok to me.  I still think you will struggle as it is a multi ticket case and a Judge will ask if you were driving.  Is it true that you can’t recall parking there? Don’t lie in a court defence.

And did you submit responses to the MHCLG? It’s about to close in 2 days.