Should I appeal Amtrac parking ticket as permit was on display or contact them and appeal?

Victoire7

Thank you very much for your support. I will draft something and post it

Le_Kirk

Victoire7 said:

Thank you very much for your support. I will draft something and post it

...... after having done the AoS.  When you have drafted something (hopefully your defence based on the template) you only need to post here paragraphs 2 & 3, we don't need to check @Coupon-mad's work.  When it has been critiqued you add it back to the template and send that to CCBC by e-mail.

Victoire7

Thank you for all your help. I have drafted my defence and would be most grateful for any advice or improvements. Many thanks

Amtrac’s permit was on display at all times on the front windscreen, albeit furled due to the heat because no permit holder was supplied with the wafer-like permit, but it was ‘clearly on display’ as per Amtrac’s parking requirements. in accordance with guidelines.  Amtrac’s permit is made of the flimsiest material and in the sun furled up and could easily have flown out of the window, when driving, but was always kept on the dashboard to ensure it was always on display.

The parking ticket was issued at 4am on October 9.

I therefore wrote an informal appeal to Mr Ziff, director of Amtrac on  October 24, which was returned opened after the appeal date had passed. I additionally applied to LPC to formally appeal on the advice of CAB, but Amtrac would not allow me to appeal the fine, as per their conditions, even though I still had a month from the date that  the informal appeal was rejected which was November 10. Instead, Mr Ziff, waited until the appeal date had passed to return the letter on November 9. The day (November 10) after Mr Ziff returned my informal letter of appeal unanswered, I received a letter from Amtrac pursuing the fine. 

I rang Amtrac on November 25 as I was unable to appeal on the LPC site even though I was still within time to make a formal appeal, according to CAB. I was threatened by the telephonist and the phone was put down when I asked for her name. I rang back and the second telephonist refused to give me the name and said it was a very bad line. According to CAB they must give their names by law.

My reason for not paying is that Amtrac would not allow me to appeal, informally or formally, and have has crossed the boundary beyond fair and open dealing with the public. When Amtrac are allowed to carry on ad nausea issuing the flimsiest tickets known to anyone and, as is apparent from hundreds of reports, they are deliberately or negligently cashing in on them.

In my case the ticket is visible and did not fall off the dashboard. So, my ticket receipt was at all material times, displayed in accordance with the terms of the sign. It was displayed on the dashboard and being furled by the sun does not change the fact that the driver’s conduct was compliant.

There is zero legitimate interest here and no breach occurred. This PCN is part of a course of serial rogue conduct, of the type that any reasonable onlooker would hope a decent trade body and ADR would  look to stamp out, in readiness for the new statutory code of practice in 2022.

Coupon-mad

That's not a defence because it's written as 'I did this/that' (it reads like a WS).

Also there's no numbering of your paragraphs, so it's unclear whether you intend this to be paragraph 3, 4 and 5 to add to the template defence and have edited para 2 of the template accordingly?

Victoire7

Thank you for your help. I have redrafted my defence as follows and thank you for any adjustments. It runs without change except in the paras 1, 2 and 3. Many thanks:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

Full name of parking firm Ltd, not the solicitor!

(Claimant) 

- and -  

Defendant’s name from N1 claim (can’t be changed to driver now)                        

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

• 2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered
• keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The vehicle was parked at xxxxx on 9/10/2021 at 4am when the parking fine was issued by the claimant.
• 3. The vehicle in question was correctly parked in the allocated parking space and had the correct permit issued by the claimant on display in the front windscreen, albeit furled due to the heat because of the wafer-like permit, but it was ‘clearly on display’ as per the claimant’s parking instructions. 
• a) It is contended that it was the claimant’s fault that the ticket was not sticky or sufficiently robust for a coastal area where high winds are normal, and where this would be expected.
• b) The claimant issuing the flimsiest tickets is beyond fair and open dealing with the public as is apparent from hundreds of reports and the claimant is deliberately and negligently cashing in on them. 
• c) The parking permit was at all material times displayed in accordance with the term on the sign. It was displayed on the dashboard and being curled with the sun does not change the fact that the driver’s conduct was compliant. 
• d) The holiday company who own the rent out the residence and parking space state: “There is a parking permit and that must be shown on display if the parking is used. You can only use the allocated parking spaced marked xx. You are also strongly advised to display the permit once you have arrived to avoid any unnecessary fines. The permit must be returned together with the key in the key safe. Failure to do so will result in a fine.’ The defendant  was complaint with the requirements laid out by the holiday firm that the defendant rented the property from at all times.
• d) There is zero legitimate interest here and no breach occurred. If you don't know because the Defendant didn't get any letters, say that instead.

4. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  To pre-empt the usual template responses from this serial litigator: the court process is outside of the Defendant's life experience and they cannot be criticised for adapting some pre-written wording from a reliable advice resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. 

5. With regard to template statements, the Defendant observes after researching other parking claims, that the Particulars of Claim ('POC') set out a cut-and-paste incoherent statement of case.  Prior to this - and in breach of the pre-action protocol for 'Debt' Claims - no copy of the contract (sign) accompanied any Letter of Claim.  The POC is sparse on facts about the allegation which makes it difficult to respond in depth at this time; however the claim is unfair, objectionable, generic and inflated.  

6.  This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate fixed sum (routinely added per PCN) despite knowing that this is now banned. It is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable (authorities: two well-known ParkingEye cases where modern penalty law rationale was applied).  Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.  Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment.  Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (sitting at the High Court; later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating it to £135 'would appear to be penal'.

7. This finding is underpinned by the Government, who have now stated that attempts to gild the lily by adding 'debt recovery costs' were 'extorting money'.  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') published in February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice, found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice

8. Adding costs/damages/fees (however described) onto a parking charge is now banned. In a section called 'Escalation of costs' the incoming statutory Code of Practice says: "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued." 

9. The Code's Ministerial Foreword is unequivocal about abusive existing cases such as the present claim: "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists." 

10. The DLUHC consulted for over two years and considered evidence from a wide range of stakeholders.  Almost a fifth of all respondents to the 2021 Technical Consultation called for false fees to be scrapped altogether; this despite the parking industry flooding both public consultations, some even masquerading as consumers. The DLUHC saw through this and in a published Response, they identified that some respondents were 'parking firms posing as motorists'.  Genuine consumer replies pointed out that successful debt recovery does not trigger court proceedings and the debt recovery/robo-claim law firms operate on a 'no win, no fee' basis, seeking to inflate the sum of the parking charge, which in itself is already sufficiently enhanced.  

11. This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs (not even for reminder letters) because the (already high) parking charge more than covers what the Supreme Court in Beavis called an automated letter-chain business model that generates a healthy profit.

Coupon-mad

Bit better, but you have repeated 'the Defendant was the rk' and not yet said 'and driver' as the template tells you to add. 

And eeek, obviously remove this commentary from me and change the claimant to the parking firm and the defendant to your name, in the headings on the real version!

•  "If you don't know because the Defendant didn't get any letters, say that instead."

Victoire7

Thank you very much for your comments. So sorry, should have left the first part out. It was really to check if paras 2 and 3 and the rest of the defence are alright.

Fruitcake

It is not a fine.

You need to sort out the formatting so the paragraph numbers make sense.

Check spelling and grammar, for example,

"The defendant  was complaint compliant with the requirements laid out by the holiday firm that the defendant rented the property from at all times."

Quote the judge's comments and case and case number from the Parking Prankster's blog to support your comments that the permit was not fit for purpose. It is a few years old, but still relevant today.

Case number C8GF30W7 Link Parking v Mr H.  14/11/2016 Port Talbot 

Parking Prankster: Search results for sticky (parking-prankster.blogspot.com)

Victoire7

Thank you for such great help. I have amended my plea as follows:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

Amtrac  (Claimant) 

- and -  

Mrs ….S    (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

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. The vehicle was parked at xxxxx on 9/10/2021 at 4am when the parking fine was issued by the claimant.

3. The vehicle in question was correctly parked in the allocated parking space and had the correct permit issued by the claimant on display in the front windscreen, albeit furled due to the heat because of the wafer-like permit, but it was ‘clearly on display’ as per the claimant’s parking instructions. 

• a) It is contended that it was the claimant’s fault that the ticket was not sticky or sufficiently robust for a coastal area where high winds are normal, and where this would be expected. This is exemplified by the following 2016 ruling:  
  C8GF30W7 Link Parking v Mr H.  14/11/2016 Port Talbot which stated that:

Mr H parked and purchased a valid ticket which he displayed on the dashboard. When he returned to his car he found a parking charge because at some time the ticket had turned upside down. This was the second hearing. The first was adjourned.

The judge dismissed the claim. He ruled that it was the responsibility of the parking company to provide sticky backed tickets and that he had already thrown out 6-10 of these type of cases which Link Parking had brought.

b) The claimant issuing the flimsiest tickets is beyond fair and open dealing with the public as is apparent from hundreds of reports and the claimant is deliberately and negligently cashing in on them.

c) The parking permit was at all material times displayed in accordance with the term on the sign. It was displayed on the dashboard and being curled with the sun does not change the fact that the driver’s conduct was compliant.

d) The holiday company who own the rent out the residence and parking space state: “There is a parking permit and that must be shown on display if the parking is used. You can only use the allocated parking spaced marked xx. You are also strongly advised to display the permit once you have arrived to avoid any unnecessary fines. The permit must be returned together with the key in the key safe. Failure to do so will result in a fine.’ The defendant  was compliant with the requirements laid out by the holiday firm that the defendant rented the property from at all times.

e) There is zero legitimate interest here and no breach occurred.

4. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  To pre-empt the usual template responses from this serial litigator: the court process is outside of the Defendant's life experience and they cannot be criticised for adapting some pre-written wording from a reliable advice resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. 

5. With regard to template statements, the Defendant observes after researching other parking claims, that the Particulars of Claim ('POC') set out a cut-and-paste incoherent statement of case.  Prior to this - and in breach of the pre-action protocol for 'Debt' Claims - no copy of the contract (sign) accompanied any Letter of Claim.  The POC is sparse on facts about the allegation which makes it difficult to respond in depth at this time; however the claim is unfair, objectionable, generic and inflated.  

6.  This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate fixed sum (routinely added per PCN) despite knowing that this is now banned. It is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable (authorities: two well-known ParkingEye cases where modern penalty law rationale was applied).  Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.  Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment.  Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (sitting at the High Court; later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating it to £135 'would appear to be penal'.

7. This finding is underpinned by the Government, who have now stated that attempts to gild the lily by adding 'debt recovery costs' were 'extorting money'.  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') published in February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice, found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice

Coupon-mad

Looking good.  But it's not a 'fine' and the Claimant is not listed as 'Armtrac' on the Claim form.

Not sure if you've removed half the Template Defence?  None of it is to be removed, just to be clear.