Claim Form CCBC

moby_a

Timeline

Good afternoon all,

So I’ve had a claim form come through from the CCBC for a parking charge issued 27th May 2021.

Unfortunately, I did not know much about this parking charge until it was too late, due to reasons I shan’t go into here, but in a nutshell, I was unable to access the house where the letters were sent throughout the pandemic until very recently.

Having now retrieved what I hope are all the letters, please see a timeline of events as follows:

·        27th May 2020: initial PCN issued from Parkwatch – amount due £100

·        25th June 2020: reminder from Parkwatch

·        2nd Sept 2020: Debt Recovery Plus letter offering 3 choices; pay £170, Pay over 4months, otherwise charge may increase to £235

·        18th Sept 2020: Debt Recovery Plus letter stating £153 owed, which may increase to £235

·        8th Oct 2020: Zenith Collections letter stating they have been appointed by Defence Systems Ltd. T/A Park Watch to collect £170

·        19th Oct 2020: another letter from Zenith Collections, stating the same as the above with an extension to pay + final warning of legal action

·        10th Nov 2020: ‘unpaid debt’ letter from CST Law asking for £170, as per 19th Oct

·        2nd July 2021: letter from bwlegal, stating they have been instructed in relation to a balance of £100 PCN charge + client’s debt recovery costs of £60 (total £160) + warning of next stages if unpaid

·        2nd Aug 2021: another letter from bwlegal, as per 2nd July

·        1st Sept 2021: Letter of Claim from bwlegal, with estimate claim as follows: principal debt + debt recovery costs £160, estimated interest £16.48, estimated court fees £35, estimated solicitor’s costs £50 – totalling £261.48

·        26th Nov 2021: Claim Form from CCBC, total amount being claimed £256.14

 

Having read through what guidance I can find on the forum, I have carried out the AoS online (on the 30th Nov 2021). Following this, I have used the defence template & altered the appropriate paragraphs (see the end of this post) – please might someone guide me as to whether this is adequate/suitable?  

> I have been back to the spot (in another city) to obtain photos of the signs in the vicinity.

> In addition to this, having come across various outcomes of cases on the forum, how would I incorporate these into a defence, or does this come later?

Please do let me know if I am jumping the gun or if there is anything else I need to do – it’s all been a bit of a shock and a lot to take on board, especially having missed out on appealing, requesting the SAR etc.

Many thanks for any help in advance!

Defence paragrpahs 2&3 (using stickied template):

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The vehicle was on a PCP hire purchase plan at the time of the alleged contravention.

 3.  The particulars of claim lack specificity and are based upon a total lack of clarity. The vehicle was parked in a bay during the midst of the first national lockdown in order for the defendant, as a key worker, to obtain some medications on prescription from a pharmacy in the near vicinity. At a time when a large majority of parking restrictions had been eased, given the extraordinary circumstances, the defendant is appalled that this matter has been stretched to such extents. A sign closest to the parking location merely states ‘parking conditions apply’. Any further & alternate signage present to indicate the forming of a contract or limitations to parking were unclear & any clear or readable print was non-indicative of any such contract being formed.

Furthermore, with regard to any signage present, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.

The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and clarity to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;

The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signator. The signage also contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3

The Defendant avers that the site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected, all the more so during a national locdown. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.

 

 

 

Umkomaas

> I have been back to the spot (in another city) to obtain photos of the signs in the vicinity. 

> In addition to this, having come across various outcomes of cases on the forum, how would I incorporate these into a defence, or does this come later?

Simply in response to these two points - evidence is saved for the Witness Statement stage, not for using at Defence stage. 

1505grandad

" 27th May 2020: initial PCN issued from Parkwatch...."

Is this the parking company?:- (if not please state full name of claimant).

Defence Systems Limited t/a Park Watch                      http://www.defence-systems.com

If so they are BPA AoS members  -  not IPC (International Parking Community)

moby_a

1505grandad said:

If so they are BPA AoS members  -  not IPC (International Parking Community)

Thank you, I will adjust this accordingly

KeithP

moby_a said:

 26th Nov 2021: Claim Form from CCBC, total amount being claimed £256.14

 I have carried out the AoS online (on the 30th Nov 2021). 

I am going to assume that the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form is 26th November 2021. Please confirm.
Anything different may affect your Defence filing deadline.

With a Claim Issue Date of 26th November, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 30th November, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 29th December 2021 to file your Defence.

That's over two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

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

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Le_Kirk

It is irrelevant if the car is on a PCP or owned outright.  What is important is whether you were the driver in the day or not.  The second sentence of your paragraph 3 makes it sound as if the car was parked there for the duration of the lockdown!  The rest of it should be saved for the witness statement and keep the defence to short, punchy legal/technical arguments that outline what sort of car park it was and why you did not comply with any conditions pertaining to it.  Not seeing the signage is a usual point but that is covered in the standard template so make sure you do not duplicate or weaken that point.
The claimant having suffered no loss is NOT a defence.

D_P_Dance

     2nd Sept 2020: Debt Recovery Plus letter offering 3 choices; pay £170, Pay over 4months, otherwise charge may increase to £235

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount for debt collection. This amounts to double recovery and Judges all over the country are dismissing these spurious additions. Indeed some judges have dismissed entire claims because of this. Read this and complain to Trading Standards and your MP,

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V%20Excel%20v%20Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

However, VCS appealed this so it may not apply in all cases, read this

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ntksx9g7177ahyg/VCS v Percy v1 Amendments (2).pdf?dl=0Also read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcripts-re-parking-firms-false-costs-recorder-cohen-qc-judgment-2021/p1

Also consider complaining to The SRA about the solicitor, if one is involved They are fully aware of the unlawful nature of most of thse additions yet persist in adding them..

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/

moby_a

KeithP said:

I am going to assume that the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form is 26th November 2021. Please confirm.

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

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

> You're correct the issue date is the 26th Nov 2021, sorry for any confusion

> I feel as though it is mostly done - I only need to edit paragraphs 2&3 from the second post in the newbies thread? which I have done, but am happy to add to/amend as per any advice offered here  

moby_a

Le_Kirk said:

It is irrelevant if the car is on a PCP or owned outright.  What is important is whether you were the driver in the day or not.  The second sentence of your paragraph 3 makes it sound as if the car was parked there for the duration of the lockdown!  The rest of it should be saved for the witness statement and keep the defence to short, punchy legal/technical arguments that outline what sort of car park it was and why you did not comply with any conditions pertaining to it.  Not seeing the signage is a usual point but that is covered in the standard template so make sure you do not duplicate or weaken that point.
The claimant having suffered no loss is NOT a defence.

I appreciate the pointers, I will amend it to make it clearer, thank you. 

I will incorporate previous cases/examples & photos of signage etc into the witness statement at the later stage. 

With regards to no loss not being a defence - I found this from a previous thread & it was recommended for use. Would it be better to remove it entirely?
Thanks once again for your help 

Coupon-mad

I only need to edit paragraphs 2&3 from the second post in the newbies thread?

No.  The TEMPLATE DEFENCE thread.

Remove any mention of 'no loss' and half the stuff you copied there as it is old and you appear not to have used the template defence.

moby_a

Coupon-mad said:

I only need to edit paragraphs 2&3 from the second post in the newbies thread?

No.  The TEMPLATE DEFENCE thread.

Remove any mention of 'no loss' and half the stuff you copied there as it is old and you appear not to have used the template defence.

Sorry, I meant the template defence thread. 

I had used some of the examples given at the end of the template thread also (hence the mention of no loss)

Please see my new draft below - unsure as to whether to remove the last portion, referencing Beavis etc. - will this come later as part of the WS? Thank you 

____________________

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. Due to the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic, at a time when a large majority of parking restrictions had been eased, the defendant is appalled that this matter has been stretched to such extents.

 

3.   (a) The particulars of claim lack specificity and are based upon a total lack of clarity.

(b) The vehicle was parked in a bay for a short duration in the midst of the first national lockdown, such that the defendant, a key worker for the NHS, could obtain some prescription medications from a pharmacy in the near vicinity.

(c) The vehicle was parked for a short duration to allow the defendant to collect said medication and return to the vehicle and depart.

 (d) It was not ascertainable as to the nature of the car park, and, upon return to inspect any present signage, it is noted that a sign closest to the parking location merely states ‘parking conditions apply’. Any further & alternate signage present to indicate the forming of a contract or limitations to parking were unclear & any clear or readable print was non-indicative of any such contract being formed.

(e) Furthermore, with regard to any signage present, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and clarity to reasonably convey a contractual obligation.

Nor did the signage comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the BPA Approved Operator Scheme (AOS), an organisation to which the Claimant was a signator. The signage also contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3