Claim Form Received

ppjj29

Le_Kirk said:

ppjj29 said:

2.   It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. It is also admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged contravention.  

3.   The alleged contravention event was over five years ago so it is difficult to remember the complete facts, however it is known that the Defendant did park in the stated car park on the alleged date of the contravention event. It is also known that there were major construction/building works going on at the time of the alleged contravention event. These construction works at the time did affect the flow of traffic in the car park and also severely affected visibility of the car park terms and conditions signs. 

I plan on going into further detail in the Witness Statement with the following:

• Photographs of the construction work
• Making it known that I had received no responses to my initial appeal and follow-up email in April 2020
• Explaining that I cannot remember the full facts relating to my initial appeal, however I am certain that there were construction works taking place and traffic flow was impacted, along with visibility of the car park signs

Thanks.

Just condense your paragraph 1 as shown.  It is good that you will add evidence to back up your defence in your witness statement.

Thanks!

Will I get a chance to view the Claimants bundle, witness statement etc before I submit my own?

KeithP

ppjj29 said:

Le_Kirk said:

ppjj29 said:

2.   It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. It is also admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged contravention.  

3.   The alleged contravention event was over five years ago so it is difficult to remember the complete facts, however it is known that the Defendant did park in the stated car park on the alleged date of the contravention event. It is also known that there were major construction/building works going on at the time of the alleged contravention event. These construction works at the time did affect the flow of traffic in the car park and also severely affected visibility of the car park terms and conditions signs. 

I plan on going into further detail in the Witness Statement with the following:

• Photographs of the construction work
• Making it known that I had received no responses to my initial appeal and follow-up email in April 2020
• Explaining that I cannot remember the full facts relating to my initial appeal, however I am certain that there were construction works taking place and traffic flow was impacted, along with visibility of the car park signs

Thanks.

Just condense your paragraph 1 as shown.  It is good that you will add evidence to back up your defence in your witness statement.

Will I get a chance to view the Claimants bundle, witness statement etc before I submit my own?

Maybe, maybe not.
They will have exactly the same filing deadline as you, so if they serve it on you a few days earlier then you will.

Coupon-mad

Did you get the defence emailed, and got an acknowledgement back from the CCBC?

ppjj29

Coupon-mad said:

Did you get the defence emailed, and got an acknowledgement back from the CCBC?

Hi,

I haven't sent the defence yet. I will likely do so this week.

Is there any benefit to sending it sooner rather than later?

Thanks. 

Coupon-mad

Slow down and read other threads. I'm not sure you've yet changed the template to reflect the shiny new Code of Practice (Feb 2022) ban on the 'extortionate' (DLUHC Minister) false debt recovery add-on (£70)?

Do this and - unlike that OP - please don't remove other stuff from the template (only replace the stuff about the Semark-Jullien case with my suggested new words and let's see what it looks like)!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79021699/#Comment_79021699

It will really help me to see someone try to replace the old words about double recovery with the new, because I'd then have something to work with to edit the current template defence:

I just have't had time yet!  Somewhat busy...

ppjj29

Coupon-mad said:

Slow down and read other threads. I'm not sure you've yet changed the template to reflect the shiny new Code of Practice (Feb 2022) ban on the 'extortionate' (DLUHC Minister) false debt recovery add-on (£70)?

Do this and - unlike that OP - please don't remove other stuff from the template (only replace the stuff about the Semark-Jullien case with my suggested new words and let's see what it looks like)!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79021699/#Comment_79021699

It will really help me to see someone try to replace the old words about double recovery with the new, because I'd then have something to work with to edit the current template defence:

I just have't had time yet!  Somewhat busy...

Thank you for your response.

I plan on putting some time aside this week/weekend to go through everything. It's hard finding the time juggling a full time job and two businesses! I will update this thread once done. I am hoping to get a look in on Wednesday evening, all going well. 

Really appreciate the help so far.

ppjj29

So the SAR has come through. They have:

- Original Charge Notice (Letter 1)
- Charge Notice Reminder (Letter 2)
- Legal Action Pending (Letter 3)

All within the space of a month.

They have a copy of an Appeal Response which is a response to my original appeal saying they will reconsider if I can supply evidence of custom in the local area. I don't remember receiving this letter and do not remember if I responded to it. 

The final note they have is a screenshot of a note on what I assume is their system, with a description of my appeal and that they are awaiting further info from me. 

They say in their email that they are not able to provide a copy of my appeal as they no longer hold a copy of it.

What is the best route to go with this defence? I can mention that the parking signs were not visible due to the construction works, but it's just whether I mention about the exit being blocked due to construction work? It's not something I can accurately remember.

Coupon-mad: I have read through your posts regarding the DLUHC Code of Practice - is this being inserted into defences in place of Paragraph 7 (The Claimant cannot be heard to base its charge on the Beavis caseThe Claimant cannot be heard to base its charge on the Beavis case...) ?

Thanks.

Coupon-mad

My suggested new defence wording from para 4 onwards has been shown in a reply I made a couple of days ago in the thread about JD Parking.

Sorry can't recall the username but it's four lower case letters starting with 'e' snd easy to find as the title of the thread includes JD Parking, which no other current ones do. 

ppjj29

Coupon-mad said:

My suggested new defence wording from para 4 onwards has been shown in a reply I made a couple of days ago in the thread about JD Parking.

Sorry can't recall the username but it's four lower case letters starting with 'e' snd easy to find as the title of the thread includes JD Parking, which no other current ones do. 

What a great defence. I have amended mine, how does it look? It wouldn't let me include it all but it is all the same as per the JD thread.

On a side note - how likely is it that the parking company will have CCTV images/videos to use as evidence from 5 years ago? Nothing came up in the SAR but I guess they don't have to disclose?

Thanks.

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 of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.

3.   The alleged event was over five years ago so it is difficult to remember the complete facts, however it is known that I did park in the stated car park on the alleged date of the event. It is also known that there were major construction/building works going on at the time of the alleged event. These construction works at the time did affect the flow of traffic in the car park and also severely affected visibility of the car park terms and conditions signs.

4. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  The Defendant should not be criticised for using some pre-written wording from a reliable source.  The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. This Defendant signs it after a great deal of research, after adding facts and reading the defence through several times because the court process is outside of their life experience and this claim was an unexpected shock.

5.  With regard to template statements, the Defendant observes after researching other parking cases, that the Particulars of Claim ('POC') set out a generic and incoherent statement of case.  Prior to this and in breach of the pre-action protocol for 'Debt' Claims, there were no photos nor a copy of the contract (sign) enclosed with any Letter of Claim.  The POC is sparse on detail or facts about the alleged breach, making it difficult to respond in depth at this time.  

6.  The quantum and interest has also been enhanced.  It is denied that the sum sought is recoverable and a significant chunk of this claim represents a penalty, per the authority from two well-known ParkingEye cases.  Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.  Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the same modern penalty law rationale was applied, yet here, the learned Judge also considered added 'costs'.  The parking charge was set at £75 (discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment) then 'admin costs' inflated it to £135.  At paras 419-428, HHJ Hegarty sitting at the High Court (decision ratified by the CoA) found that adding £60 to enhance the sum sought to £135 'would appear to be penal', i.e. unrecoverable.  

7.  The Defendant's stance regarding this punitive add-on is now underpinned by Government intervention and regulation.  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') published on 7 February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice which all private parking operators must comply with, found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice

8.  Adding 'debt recovery' costs, damages or fees (however described) on top of a parking charge is banned. In a very short section called 'Escalation of costs' the new statutory Code of Practice now being implemented says: "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued."  

9.    This particular Claimant's legal team routinely continues to pursue a sum on top of each PCN, despite indisputably knowing that these are banned costs.  The claim is exaggerated by inclusion of a false, wholly disproportionate and unincurred 'damages' enhancement of £60 or £70 upon which the Claimant seems to have also added interest at 8% calculated from the date of parking.  Clearly an abuse of the court process.

Coupon-mad

On a side note - how likely is it that the parking company will have CCTV images/videos to use as evidence from 5 years ago? Nothing came up in the SAR but I guess they don't have to disclose?

Yes they do have to disclose all images of the car, as the VRM is your data.  Therefore they have nothing more.