Claim form received from County Court

snowlucas

5.         Within the BPA code of practice, the claimant was required to provide reasonable grace periods. These include a grace period for the driver to read any relevant signage before committing to park. In this specific case the signs were sparse, well above head height and using small font. As such it was reasonable for the defendant to have taken an extended period of time to review and attempt to understand them. The Code of Practice also requires a minimum of ten minutes grace period at the end of the parking period before enforcement should commence. The claimant’s evidence alleges a total park time of four hours and eleven minutes. Considering the recommended grace periods as outlined in the BPA Code of Practice parking enforcement should not have taken place in the timeframe shown.

1505grandad

Pedantic mode:-

"3.         The defendant understands that the claim (it) is in relation to allegedly parking for longer than the maximum period permitted."

Add that  -  remove (it)?

snowlucas

No please be as pedantic as you like. It's all helpful.

So is the general consensus that 6 adds nothing and should be removed entirely? 

snowlucas

KeithP said:

snowlucas said:

Is it worth talking about the 8% interest rate they have added? The average is less than 0.25% over that period from a quick look.

Not worth mentioning. That 8% figure is 'hard coded' in The County Courts Act.

But have they calculated the interest over the correct period?

What would be a resonable period? Can it be from the day the ticket is issued? Also I assume the 8% shouldn't be added to the total of £160 from day one as the initial PCN was for £100. Hard to reverse engineer their total but I will have a look.

snowlucas

Le_Kirk said:

snowlucas said:

3.         The defendant understands the claim it is in relation to allegedly parking for longer than the maximum period permitted. This timeframe is not specified in the claim, the original Parking Charge Notice, any of the letters sent by the claimant nor the photographic evidence submitted to the defendant.

4.         The claimant, as a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) agreed to follow the BPA code of practice (version 6 from October 2015). The claimant was therefore required to display signs which were “conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” The claimant's own photographic evidence shows that the signs failed to meet these those requirements. No detail of the alleged contract can be determined from the images and therefore the claimant has no basis on which to specify which terms were alleged to have been formed within any contract. 

5.         Within the BPA code of practice, the claimant was required to provide reasonable grace periods. These include a grace period for the driver to read any relevant signage before committing to park. As shown by the claimant’s own evidence reviewing these signs would reasonably take an extended period of time due to poor legibility, sparsity and positioning at height. The Code of Practice also requires a minimum of ten minutes grace period at the end of the parking period before enforcement should commence. The claimant’s evidence alleges a total park time of four hours and eleven minutes. Considering the recommended grace periods as outlined in the BPA Code of Practice parking enforcement should not have taken place in the timeframe shown.

6.         The BPA Code of Practice Practice also states that all charges related to a breach of contract “must be proportionate and commercially justifiable” and should not exceed £100. In this case the claimant has exceeded this amount claiming an extra £60 for damages. This extra £60 has been added without specifying what these damages are for. These damages were never indicated on any letter received from the claimant. The defendant requires the claimant to justify what damages they claim to have occurred and how the defendant is responsible for these costs. The claimants own Code of Practice denies such added costs by stating the “charge should not be punitive or unreasonable. If it is more than the amount in Clause 19.5 and is not justified in advance, it could lead to an investigation by Trading Standards or another appropriate authority.”

Couple of small changes suggested.  Also, in paragraph 5, you might have to spell out to the judge how this works.  There is reference in the standard defence template to the additional unlawful sums.  Make sure you do not duplicate the points.

I've re-written 5 a bit as above. I feel like the point is more the grace periods. If they had the best signs in the world I still have the right to go and review them before I commit to park. As such I've removed reference to their sign photo evidence as from my point of view on grace periods they are irrelevant. I've left them in 4 as hopefully they do submit that photo and as shown it doesn't show anything.

KeithP

snowlucas said:

KeithP said:

snowlucas said:

Is it worth talking about the 8% interest rate they have added? The average is less than 0.25% over that period from a quick look.

Not worth mentioning. That 8% figure is 'hard coded' in The County Courts Act.

But have they calculated the interest over the correct period?

What would be a resonable period? Can it be from the day the ticket is issued? Also I assume the 8% shouldn't be added to the total of £160 from day one as the initial PCN was for £100. Hard to reverse engineer their total but I will have a look.

The calculation gets quite complicated.

Obviously they can't charge interest on anything until you have received an invoice - and as they allow 28 days for payment they can't charge interest before then.
Remember that a discounted amount is due if paid within 14 days - that will skew the calculation.
Of course they cannot charge interest on the extra added charges until at least those charges have been added. When did you first hear about the extra £60? They certainly cannot charge interest on that £60 from the date of the parking incident - of course they can't.

As you say, hard to work it out. I wouldn't try. Just concentrate on defeating their Claim.

Coupon-mad

Remove 6, yes, because it is trying to say stuff the template covers.

snowlucas

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 is denied. 

3.         The defendant understands that the claim is in relation to allegedly parking for longer than the maximum period permitted. This timeframe is not specified in the claim, the original Parking Charge Notice, any of the letters sent by the claimant nor the photographic evidence submitted to the defendant.

4.         The claimant as a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) agreed to follow the BPA code of practice (version 6 from October 2015). The claimant was therefore required to display signs which were “conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” The claimant’s own photographic evidence shows that the signs failed to meet those requirements. No detail of the alleged contract can be determined from the images and therefore the claimant has no basis on which to specify which terms were alleged to have been formed within any contract. 

5.         Within the BPA code of practice, the claimant was required to provide reasonable grace periods. These include a grace period for the driver to read any relevant signage before committing to park. In this specific case the signs were sparse, well above head height and using small font. As such it was reasonable for the defendant to have taken an extended period of time to review and attempt to understand them. The Code of Practice also requires a minimum of ten minutes grace period at the end of the parking period before enforcement should commence. The claimant’s evidence alleges a total park time of four hours and eleven minutes. Considering the recommended grace periods as outlined in the BPA Code of Practice parking enforcement should not have taken place in the timeframe shown.

6.  The Particulars of Claim set out an incoherent statement of case.... Rest of template

snowlucas

Have removed the old 6 as advised and and made changes as suggested for grammar and clarity. This plus the rest of the template is what I'm hoping ti submit. Any last minute comments welcome.

To anyone reading this thread thinking about following the Newbies thread. This wasn't that hard at all and everyone here has been really helpful. Didn't take a lot of time at all. 

Coupon-mad

Looks fine now and thanks v much for the vote of confidence about how easy it is once you get started!