parked on white line, bought ticket correctly, left within time. court letter issued.

babbal_samrat

i found it. 
the actual website is https:// premierparkinglogistics .com/

KeithP

Their website is:
https://premierparkinglogistics.com

Here is the bottom of one of their webpages...


Interestingly, the postal address on their Privacy Page... 

...is totally different to the one you mention.

babbal_samrat

D_P_Dance said:

Total amount claimed is £250.76

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount for debt collection. Judges have dismissed an entire claim because of this. Read this and complain to your MP.

the charges are as following: 
amount claimed: 165.76
court fee: 35
legal rep costs: 50
total: 250.76

babbal_samrat

i have sent SAR to PPL.
just about to open goverment gateway account.
what will be the next step after that please.

Thanks everyone, you all are so helpful, giving people your valuable time and knowledge, experience. really appreciate it.

KeithP

babbal_samrat said:

what will be the next step after that please.

Please read again my post earlier Today at 2:48PM.

babbal_samrat

Hello all, 

thank you all for your guidance and help so far. I have done AoS today as advised. Now I will be filing the defence but if I could get help in preparing the defence please. all suggestions are welcome.

Please see the attached drawing which describes how my car was parked. Basically it was indoor pay and display car park in which I had parked at the last parking bay. there were cars parked in parking bays before me but as my car was last so there was no parking bay after my car but there was some stuff thrown and lying around on the floor. my car was parked in the parking bay but passenger side tyres were on white parking line. There was mixture of oil and water on the floor making it difficult to see the white line on the floor, however you could see the line but not very clearly. my tyres were on the white line but not crossing the white line and there was no space for any car to be parked after my car so there was no loss of business/service to the car parking company and the land owner. I paid the right amount and displayed the ticket correctly and left before the ticket was expired.

Can you please guide me from your experience that how should I write my defence what points should I include particularly for my case other than the suggested points in the defence template

Coupon-mad

I think the way you described that is compelling and you don't need any guidance because all you need to do is write what you said above but in the third person ("the Defendant did this/that", not "I").

That will be your point #3 in the template and in #2, if you were driving, then say 'keeper and driver'.  

In your case it will be about the facts and you should admit to driving.  If you appealed, say so. In the defence as point #4 and change the numbering below that.  I expect the Judge to see this PCN as a complete waste of time by chancers.

babbal_samrat

dear all,
i have received an email from the DCB legal when i sent them an email as suggested.....
please read the following and let me know that if this is normal....

Good Afternoon

Thank you for providing that information.

 As legal proceedings have commenced, PAP 2017 does not apply, therefore, a hold will not be placed on file. We recommend you respond to the court documentation.

 Please note, a Subject Access Request also does not place legal proceedings on hold.

Kind Regards,  

Owen Cook  
DCB Legal Limited  
 
Tel: 0203 434 0433 | DX 23457 Runcorn  

D_P_Dance

... the mistake i made was that i parked my car with my tyres on white parking bay

Many judges will regard this as trivial, a waste of court time, many times you have no alternative.read this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis

babbal_samrat

DEAR ALL,

i have prepaired the defence, its as following...

 can you please read through it and let me know if it is all good to be submitted. 

is there anything else i need to add or delete any points out of it. please let me know.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: xxxxxx,

Between

Walton Wilkins T.A. Premier Parking Logistics 

(Claimant) 

- and -  

xxxxxxxxxx

 (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 and driver of the vehicle in question but liability to the sum claimed is denied. 

3. The defendant parked his car on date at timeIBat a car park on car park location street managed by the claimant. The Defendant paid for the parking charge for 2 hours, by entering the correct registration no. and paid the correct fee and displayed the ticket correctly, easily readable and easily visible in the car parked in the question in this claim.

The defendant parked the car at the last parking bay in that parking row. There were cars parked in parking bays before the defendant’s car but as the defendant’s car was last so there was no parking bay after defendant’s car but there was some stuff thrown and lying around on the floor. Defendant’s car was parked in the parking bay but passenger side tyre was on white parking line (not crossing over). There was mixture of oil and water on the floor making it difficult to see the white line on the floor while seated in the car to park the car.

Furthermore, the car parked before the defendant’s car was a car with a couple who had a very small baby with them. In order to give them enough room to get in and out easily with the toddler and his pram and other stuff etc, defendant parked his car leaving a little extra room for them for their safety as the floor was slippery as stated above due to a lot of slippery fluid on the floor and the parking site not maintained properly and making it dangerous for people especially elderly, little kids, pregnant and the ladies who had just given birth to a baby and carrying them out of the car.

It is a clear, dangerous and unavoidable hazard. Moreover, because of all above situation - you could see the white line but not very clearly. Defendant’s car’s passenger side tyre was on the white line but not crossing the white line and there was no further parking bay space for any car to be parked after defendant’s car so there was no loss of business/service to the car parking company and the land owner. Defendant paid the right amount and displayed the ticket correctly and left before the ticket was expired.

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: