Claim Form - Country Court Business Centre

cam40983

Hi,

I hope your all well and safe.

I have recieved a Claim For from UK Car Park Management Limited (Claimiant) and Gladsone Solicitor acting for the claimaint.

The claim is for

Amount Claimed £187.07
Court fee £50
Legeal rep cost £50
Total   £272.08

I recieved the letter through my post in August 2020, claiming that I had breached the Vista Centre, Hounslow parking conditions.

I replied tot he letter throught he CPM website and explained to them that I had visit the Vista Centre to drop of a client as I am a taxi driver.

The client I had picked up from Guildford and took to Vista Centre Hounslow worked for a company who are based inside he Vista Centre Hounslow.

When I dropped the client there, she told me to wait because she had to bring some material from her office to load into the car and I would be taking her back as agreed.

I stayed in my car outside the office based inside the Vista Centre Housnlow while the staff working there got her material and equipmnts and loaded them into the car, this took about 30 to 40 minutes but I remained in my car as she was loading it with valuable cleaning products.

After she had loaded the equipments, she signed out of her office and we left to go back to Guildford.

I explained to UK Car Park that I had not parked there, as I was waiting for the car to be loaded and the person who had hired me was tenant office worker.

They rejected my explaination and told me to appeal, I did not appeal as I was going through a rough time with nearly every memebr of the family suffering from covid and a sick young child.

However i recieved a Claim From from the COunty COurt Business Centre, claiming the amount mentioned above owned to Gladstone Solicitior.

I want to defend this, as being a taxi driver I was just doing my job waiting for the tenant in Vista Centre to load the car and leave. The lady who I had picked up, I have her full name and the company she works for inside the Vista Centre.

Can anyone please advise what I should do, I have till 21st Dec to do a defence as the issue date is 3rd Dec 2021 and I recieved it 13th Dec 2021 and the court allowed 5 days for post plus 14days to reply.

PLease advise.

Regards

cam40983

I have done a Acknowledgement of service online. As today was the last day.

Now I believe I have 14 days to submit a defence.

PLease advise and I appreciate all the help.

Regards

D_P_Dance

Total   £272.08

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 Gladstones.  They are fully aware of the unlawful nature of most of thse additions yet persist in adding them..despite being under investigation for possible financial irregularities.

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

Redx

cam40983 said:

I have done a Acknowledgement of service online. As today was the last day.

Now I believe I have 14 days to submit a defence.

PLease advise and I appreciate all the help.

Regards

Issue date was the 3rd , AOS submission date was 17th , so you have to file your defence by email by 33 days after the issue date , so around the 5th of January in actual fact. 5 + 14 + 14 days = 33 days

Adapt the template defence by coupon mad at the top of the forum in announcements , mentioning the Jopson case as well as anything else , Keep paragraphs 2 and 3 concise , show us your adapted paragraphs below ( do not post the whole Defence , it's your homework being checked )

Email a SAR to the DPO at UK CPM attaching a copy of the claim form as proof of I D under the GDPR law to obtain all your data

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 3rd December, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 5th January 2022 to file your Defence.

That's nearly three 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'.

cam40983

Hi guys, thanks for your replies.

Where is the defence template that I should use?

Also does my case being a Taxi driver have any weight in front of the judge?

I appreciate all you guys replying and I would like to get the defence done soon as possible as this is really stressing me out.

regards

KeithP

cam40983 said:

Where is the defence template that I should use?

I gave you a link...

KeithP said:

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.

Was that not useful?

Redx

It's in the announcements section at the top of this forum , the defence template announcement , plus the newbies FAQ sticky thread too , both are up there

Use a laptop or desktop computer to navigate this forum , not a mobile phone

cam40983

KeithP said:

cam40983 said:

Where is the defence template that I should use?

I gave you a link...

KeithP said:

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.

Was that not useful?

Hi,

Sorry mate I missed that.

Please see below what I have prepared,  PLease advise if I need to change anything.

IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE
Claim No.: H9GF0W5Y

Between

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED
(Claimant)

-and-


Defendant
(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.       The defendant, Mr Defendant , residing at ADDRESS HIDDEN, at the time of the alleged infringement is the registered keeper of the vehicle registration marked KU^^^^ which is the subject of these proceedings.

3.  Defendant is a taxi driver working for AZ Cars, Woking.

4. Defendant was given a booking by the office to pick up a a passenger by the name ********** from ADDRESS HIDDEN and take to Vista Centre, Hounslow, TW4 6JQ.

5. The passenger ********** works for a company called Jeremys Carebuddies Limited which is based inside the Vista Centre, Hounslow, TW4 6JQ.

6. Mr Defendant took the passenger ********** to Jeremys Carebuddies Limited who are tenants at Vista Centre, Hounslow, TW4 6JQ.

7. Mr Defendant dropped the passenger ********** inside the Vista Centre, Hounslow at Jeremys Carebuddies office and was told by the passenger ********** that he needs to wait as she needs to get items from the office and take her back.

8 – Mr Defendant being the taxi driver waited for Mrs ********** to gather her material from her office Jeremys Carebuddies and once all items required by the passenger were loaded, Mr Defendant left with the passenger and drove out of tenant’s car park.

9 – Mr Defendant being a taxi driver, was doing his duty of taking the customer to her office based inside the Vista Centre Hounslow, and waited in his car to take her back. He did not park his car or leave it parked, the car remained started and Mr Defendant waited inside as instructed by the tenant’s office inside Vista Centre.
10- Mr Defendant did write to UK Car Park Management Limited explaining the situation but his appeal was rejected and was advised to appeal to another forum which Mr Defendant did not do as he had explained what he could and did not get a result.

11- The appeal was done in July 2021 and rejected in August 2021 and on 13th Dec 2021 Mr Defendant received the Claim form.

 

12- In the letter sent by Uk Car Park Management dated 11/08/2021, they state “When entering the car park, signage clearly states “PARKING FOR TENANTS ANDVISITORS ONLY. USERS MUST PAY FOR PARKING OR HAVE A VALID E-PEMIT”.

13- Going by the statement above, Jeremys Carebuddies is a tenant of Vista Centre, and Mr Defendant  was hired by the tenants employee to drive her. Hence Mr Defendant  did not breach any conditions here and he was working for the Tenants of Vista Centre as a driver.

14.  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.

15.       It is denied that the exaggerated sum sought is recoverable.  The Defendant's position is that this moneyclaim 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.

16.       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.  

17.  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').

18.  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

19.       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.  

20.       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.

21.   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.  

22.   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.

23.       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.

24.   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.

25.   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.

 

26.  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:

27.   (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.

28.   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:

 

 

Le_Kirk

You could combine paragraphs 2 & 3 to say keeper and driver.  The rest of it reads more like a witness statement.  Keep the defence short, punchy and composed of legal/technical arguments that you can back up and support with your witness statement later in the process. When you repost it for critique, post ONLY the paragraphs that you have changed or added.  We don't need to check the rest of the template.

Coupon-mad

I'd remove 10, 11, 12 and 13 and keep that detail until WS and evidence stage (as the NEWBIES thread explains).