Incorrect VRN

lopolo123

Is this defence ok

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: xxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

xxxxxx (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxx (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.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration xxxxxxx of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, and the driver, was parked on the material day correctly and a ticket was purchased from a Pay and Display Terminal (PDT) by the driver and there was no overstay. Vehicle Registration Number (VRN) of the vehicle in question was not entered into the PDT instead A VRN for another vehicle the Defendant regularly uses (XXXX XXX) was entered in error. The ticket was valid in as much as the correct tariff to cover the parking was paid.

3. Proof of payment, in the form of a photograph of the purchased ticket, was supplied to the Claimant via email.

4. The PCN stated the contravention as 'Parking Session Expired or Unpaid' and this contravention is denied. The Defendant denies liability for the purported parking charge or penalty, not least because a correct parking charge or tariff, sufficient to cover the period of parking, had been paid.

5. In Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 –EGLR -154, it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach. In this case the VRN was entered for a different vehicle which if NCP check their records will see did not enter the car park at all.

6. The principle of de minimis applies here, namely that this is a legal action for technical breaches of rules or agreements where the impact of the breach is negligible.

7. The ticket bought with good intention appropriately covered the time period that the car was parked. Therefore the claimant has not suffered any loss. The BPA encourages drivers to use the correct registration but also encourages operators to waive minor breaches where such a breach is a minor error and not related to non payment as was the case here.

8. Given the fact that the ANPR data did not match with a payment made, an automated PCN was issued. It was within the gift of the Claimant to ensure before starting enforcement at any site, that their systems are fit for purpose, providing the necessary safeguards to protect against misinterpretation and failure to enter a valid DVLA vehicle registration. A PCN in these circumstances is completely foreseeable by a professional parking firm, and it is averred that this punitive charge relies upon the Claimant's own data being  wrong  at the outset.

9. The Claimant has failed to demonstrate that it made any effort to conduct a 'common sense check’ of payments made against corresponding ANPR images prior to issuing the PCN, relying purely on a flawed automated system.

10. It should be evident that the conduct of the Defendant should not have caused the penalty to arise and the Claimant could not reasonably lay any blame with the Defendant, for a failure of their own system. The charge offends against the reasonable and statutory expectations of trader/consumer relations requiring 'open dealing' and the doctrine of good faith.

11. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or the driver of the vehicle entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

12. The Claimant will no doubt hope to convince the court that a 'relevant contract' existed and was breached. As this would be a consumer contract, it must be 'fair' and 'transparent' as set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

13. According to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, any goods purchased must be ‘fit for purpose’. The Ticket that was issued was not ‘fit for purpose’ The Claimant took the Defendant’s money to issue an invalid ticket and now seeks to charge the Defendant a penalty for having an invalid ticket.

14. It is the Defendant's case that there can be no legitimate interest or commercial justification in pursuing the Defendant for a hugely disproportionate penalty when it has been proven that payment was actually made.

15. The Defendant asserts that the costs that the Claimant is attempting to claim are disproportionate and disingenuous.

16. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

17. The purported 'legal representative’s costs' of £50 are disputable. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims, handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant contends that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this cut & paste claim. 

18. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff. 

19. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing.

20. The Claimant has never demonstrated to the Defendant that they are in fact authorised to pursue this matter through the courts. 

21. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

22. It is the Defendants belief that the impending implementation of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, has encouraged the private parking firms, such as the Claimant, to vigorously pursue court actions in an attempt to make their business practices pay, before they are regulated out of existence. This belief extends from evidence on-line that the Claimant, in association with their solicitors, have massively increased the number of cases they chose to pursue through the courts earlier this year.


Coupon mads template paragraph 4 onwards added here

lopolo123

Do I have to email proof of the the ticket purchased to the claimants solicitors as well?

Coupon-mad

I see that you've copied old stuff for the bottom half instead of the template defence.  Ladak v Locums is not relevant and you'd be better with the template for that entire second half.

Also #8 and #10 add nothing useful.

lopolo123

@Coupon-mad which number point should I insert the template below then? Il delete ladak v locums and para 8 and 10 as recommended

Coupon-mad

Maybe stop at 7 then continue with the template defence as it intends.

#9 could be used at WS stage (as the NEWBIES thread explains, you get to explain the story more at the pre-hearing stage).

lopolo123

@Coupon-mad great thanks ill edit now and then post for final check

lopolo123

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: xxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

xxxxxx (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxx (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.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration xxxxxxx of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, and the driver, was parked on the material day correctly and a ticket was purchased from a Pay and Display Terminal (PDT) by the driver and there was no overstay. Vehicle Registration Number (VRN) of the vehicle in question was not entered into the PDT instead A VRN for another vehicle the Defendant regularly uses (XXXX XXX) was entered in error. The ticket was valid in as much as the correct tariff to cover the parking was paid.

3. Proof of payment, in the form of a photograph of the purchased ticket, was supplied to the Claimant via email.

4. The PCN stated the contravention as 'Parking Session Expired or Unpaid' and this contravention is denied. The Defendant denies liability for the purported parking charge or penalty, not least because a correct parking charge or tariff, sufficient to cover the period of parking, had been paid.

5. In Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 –EGLR -154, it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach. In this case the VRN was entered for a different vehicle which if NCP check their records will see did not enter the car park at all.

6. The principle of de minimis applies here, namely that this is a legal action for technical breaches of rules or agreements where the impact of the breach is negligible.

7. The ticket bought with good intention appropriately covered the time period that the car was parked. Therefore the claimant has not suffered any loss. The BPA encourages drivers to use the correct registration but also encourages operators to waive minor breaches where such a breach is a minor error and not related to non payment as was the case here.

Coupon mad defence template inserted here paragraph 4 till end

 

 

 

 

Coupon-mad

Except it needs renumbering of course!

1505grandad

Who is the claimant?

A heads-up:-

Hopefully you have read and understood the Template Defence and therefore realise that the existing para 7  in the Template states -  "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."

As you now have more than paras 2 and 3 - and therefore have to renumber the subsequent paras - you have altered the reference to point 5 accordingly.