Claim form received and aknowledgement of service sent via MCOL.

Andyteaandbiscuits

Hi everyone who is giving their time to help people like myself.

I recived a PCN back in sept 2019. CEL have progressed to a County Court Business Centre Claim. I havn't responed to any letter prior to this. I have replied via MCOL to submit the acknowledgement of service. I know this is pretty brief but I don't remeber much about the PCN.

Please see below defence.

 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration mark xxxxxxx

 

3.The defendant does not recall seeing or identifying any signage which would have allowed the defendant to automatically enter into a ‘contract’ and proceed to ‘breach’ an apparent ‘contract’ as stated in the particulars of claim on form xxxxx . As the defendant has no recollection of seeing a sign relating to parking. It can be assumed the signage was too small or conveniently placed out of sight.

 

4.  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.

5.       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.

6.       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.  

7.  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

Redx

Please post the issue date from the claim form below , plus post the AOS date too , your MCOL claim history will have both dates

Email a SAR to the DPO at CEL attaching a copy of the claim form as proof of I D under the GDPR law to obtain all your data , including documents and pictures

Le_Kirk

As the defendant has no recollection of seeing a sign relating to parking,. It can must be assumed the signage was too small or conveniently placed out of sight.

Adjust as above.  Is your defence based on the standard template?

Coupon-mad

I would not use the word 'assumed' in any defence. Better to say 'the Defendant has the honest belief that...'

This draft doesn't say why the car was there, with what authority or what sort of car park it is and what the alleged breach was and why you say it was not agreed as a contract.  You need those facts.

1505grandad

"2. It is admitted that the defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration mark xxxxxxx""

add "but liability is denied" at the end.