Defence Advice please.

synikmaster

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: xxxxxx

Between

First Parking LLP 

C/O Bishop Fleming LLP, 10 Temple Back, Bristol, BS1 6FL

(Claimant) 

                      

 (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. 

But as Hire Company the vehicle was hired by a customer name Mr. Emmanuel Quansah-Eshun.

 

3.     Defendant surprised to see the court claim as did not receive any Parking Charge Notice from Claimant.

Nor Defendant received any Debt Recovery or Letter before Claim from Claimant.

Defendant only received the Court Claim and upon receiving the Claim Defendant went through the Defendant website to find the Parking Charges Details.

Defendant Vehicle is London PCO Registered and Driver is a Private Hire Licenced from TfL London.  

As Driver statement he was working that day and got there with Customer to pick some things from his friend, who requested the driver to wait for him to collect his belongings. Customer/Rider also offered him extra money for waiting time. This took 15 minutes or so the customer to come back and then drive drove off.

Defendant driver totally denied entering into parking area. He was just waiting at customer pick/drop off point.

It was end of November and Sun sets around 4pm so it was dark by then, Driver didn’t see/notice any large/ readable notice regarding any waiting time restriction. Driver did see some Parking Instructions on the wall but it was really small to read hence the night.

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 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.

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.

Defendant’s signature:

Date:

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Coupon-mad

Your extra sentences all need a paragraph number, then change the numbering of the rest of the template.  But your facts are a bit wordy and stuff like being offered extra money to wait should be in your later witness statenent, not the defence.

A bit too much detail here but not bad!

And please please please share the Government Consultation with all other licensed taxi/private hire drivers, is there a central forum or Facebook group or way forward you to contact loads of drivers and tell them what has happened to you?

Please encourage them to object to the proposals to increase the amount of private PCNs in London to £130 plus £70 false debt recovery ‘costs’ (that parking firms don’t actually pay) which is a total of THREE TIMES the TFL congestion charge penalty.

...are you happy with that? We are not.  Please tell the Government what happened to you and what you do for a job and ask how they plan to safeguard genuine residents and taxi drivers/delivery drivers, workmen and family who visit such estates or they will become a no-go zone for private hire drivers.  

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

Please share with ANY AND ALL drivers to get them all objecting to this ludicrous amount of money and the false added £70 that Judges say is unrecoverable and unfair, yet the MHCLG have been lobbied by the industry to convince them otherwise.

Le_Kirk

Some of your defence reads like a witness statement - save the story for later - rely on technical/legal arguments such as signage etc.  All paragraphs require a number.  Your paragraph 3# needs work so that it explains clearly to the judge the set up.

synikmaster

KeithP said:

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Issue date 01 July 2021. I did acknowledge on 8th july and got 28 days to submit defence.
please advice if anything add or remove. thanks

synikmaster

Le_Kirk said:

Some of your defence reads like a witness statement - save the story for later - rely on technical/legal arguments such as signage etc.  All paragraphs require a number.  Your paragraph 3# needs work so that it explains clearly to the judge the set up.

I did change some wordings please have a look and advice any more changes or addition to it. thanks.

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

2.      As Hire Company the vehicle was hired by a customer name Mr. Emmanuel Quansah-Eshun.

3.      Defendant shocked to see the court claim as did not receive any Parking Charge Notice from Claimant.

4.      Nor Defendant received any Debt Recovery or Letter before Claim from Claimant.

5.      Defendant only received the Court Claim and upon receiving the Claim Defendant went through the Claimant website to find the Parking Charges Details.

6.      Defendant Vehicle is London PCO Registered and Driver is a Private Hire Licenced from TfL London.  

7.      Defendant/Driver went there with customer/rider to pick some belongings from his friend. This took slightly longer then anticipated, after which the customer/rider come back and then drive drove off.

8.      Defendant driver totally denied entering into parking area. He was just waiting at customer pick/drop off point.

9.      Defendant also wants to highlight the time as It was end of November and Sun sets around 4pm so it was dark by then, Driver didn’t see/notice any large/readable signage regarding any waiting time restriction. Defendant/Driver did see some Parking Instructions on the wall but it was really small to read hence the night.

Castle

synikmaster said:

KeithP said:

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Issue date 01 July 2021. I did acknowledge on 8th july and got 28 days to submit defence.
please advice if anything add or remove. thanks

Your deadline is 28 days after the date of service which is deemed to be 6th July; so it needs to be filed by 4.00pm TODAY.

KeithP

synikmaster said:

KeithP said:

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Issue date 01 July 2021. I did acknowledge on 8th july and got 28 days to submit defence.
please advice if anything add or remove. thanks

Castle said:

synikmaster said:

KeithP said:

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Issue date 01 July 2021. I did acknowledge on 8th july and got 28 days to submit defence.
please advice if anything add or remove. thanks

Your deadline is 28 days after the date of service which is deemed to be 6th July; so it needs to be filed by 4.00pm TODAY.

@Castle is absolutely right.

Hopefully something here will help you...
 

With a Claim Issue Date of 6th July, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm today to file your Defence.

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

Don't miss that 4pm deadline - just forty minutes to go.

synikmaster

KeithP said:

synikmaster said:

KeithP said:

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Issue date 01 July 2021. I did acknowledge on 8th july and got 28 days to submit defence.
please advice if anything add or remove. thanks

Castle said:

synikmaster said:

KeithP said:

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Issue date 01 July 2021. I did acknowledge on 8th july and got 28 days to submit defence.
please advice if anything add or remove. thanks

Your deadline is 28 days after the date of service which is deemed to be 6th July; so it needs to be filed by 4.00pm TODAY.

@Castle is absolutely right.

Hopefully something here will help you...
 

With a Claim Issue Date of 6th July, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm today to file your Defence.

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

Don't miss that 4pm deadline - just forty minutes to go.

I thought My deadlin is 4th August, I am ging to submit it now, is there any problem with it? Please

synikmaster

KeithP said:

synikmaster said:

KeithP said:

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Issue date 01 July 2021. I did acknowledge on 8th july and got 28 days to submit defence.
please advice if anything add or remove. thanks

Castle said:

synikmaster said:

KeithP said:

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Issue date 01 July 2021. I did acknowledge on 8th july and got 28 days to submit defence.
please advice if anything add or remove. thanks

Your deadline is 28 days after the date of service which is deemed to be 6th July; so it needs to be filed by 4.00pm TODAY.

@Castle is absolutely right.

Hopefully something here will help you...
 

With a Claim Issue Date of 6th July, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm today to file your Defence.

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

Don't miss that 4pm deadline - just forty minutes to go.

Claim issue date is 1st of july and I acknowledge it on 8th of July then what would be my deadline to submit the defences, please? 

KeithP

My earlier post was perhaps misleading - I mentioned an Issue Date of 6th July.
Of course 6th July was the date of service of the Claim.

However, your Defence filing deadline was correct....

As both @Castle and I said, your Defence filing deadline was 4pm on 3rd August.

Now that you have filed your Defence you are going to be extremely unlucky if the Claimant managed to seek a Default Judgment after 4pm yesterday and before your Defence was filed.

Check your MCOL Claim History from time to time.