Court claim form because of ANPR camera fine

Angellicaa

This is the old council one.Much more bigger and obvious.

RN61

Google Street View history is your friend!

Can be good for other things too, like proving a pothole has been there for x years...

Angellicaa

I've finally managed to write a defence and would appreciate any feedback.

Also I've only pasted the relevant part, as I assume the rest of the defence stays the same?

@Umkomaas I tried to change the title as your correct in saying this isn't a parking eye, but an ANPR camera but couldn't find any option anywhere to do this.

IN THE COUNTY COURT 

Claim No.:  XXXXXXXX 

Between 

Premier Parking Solutions LTD 

(Claimant)  

- and -   

XXXXXX XXXXXXX 

 (Defendant) 

_________________ 

DEFENCE 

 
 

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver gave rise to a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or 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 vehicle, which contained the defendant and 5 children inside, entered coronation car park on the evening of 21 July 2021, to find a public toilet for the children to use. The defendant had not visited this car park in a few years, but used it regularly in the past and remembered it use to be a council owned car park that was free after 4pm. The defendant did not see any signs while in the car park, alerting them otherwise. Unfortunately, the toilet was shut so the defendant did what any good parent would do to a desperate young child and found the nearest bush. The car park contained a few other cars, but was more empty than full. There were lots of seagulls flying around and one landed on the car, scaring one of the children, who needed attention to calm down. When all was settled the vehicle left the car park. Various letters from claimant have since been received, which have been intimidating and misleading in nature. 

 

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 signed it after full research and having read this defence several times, because the court process is outside of their life experience.  The claim was an unexpected shock. 
 

...................

Coupon-mad

That's good but I would add a point 5 clearly stating that it is the D's position that the signage was inadequate and he/she(whichever is right!) will provide images as part of their evidence later.  Signs and terms must be 'prominent' according to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and they were not.

Could also add to what will then be renumbered as #5:

The PCN was unfair and predatory and both it and this aggressive and exaggerated claim were an unexpected shock. 

KeithP

The opening few words of your paragraph 3 seem to be saying that the Defendant was driving. Is that what you intended to say?

Remember...

...you have until 4pm on Wednesday 11th May 2022 to file your Defence.

Angellicaa

KeithP said:

The opening few words of your paragraph 3 seem to be saying that the Defendant was driving. Is that what you intended to say?

I had already admitted to being the driver when i went through the appeals process. Was that a mistake?

Coupon-mad

It's OK, especially as you case is from an honest witness defendant talking about unclear signs.  Judges like that sort of case.  But you need to talk less about what you were doing and more about the defence being the signs were not prominent, as I said.

1505grandad

"I had already admitted to being the driver when i went through the appeals process."

In that case you need to add "and driver" after registered keeper in para 2. (you presumably deny liability as driver as well).

Angellicaa

I have added some bits, hopefully correctly! Does this all sound ok?

IN THE COUNTY COURT 

Claim No.:  XXXXX

Between 

Premier Parking Solutions LTD 

(Claimant)  

- and -   

XXXX XXXXX

 (Defendant) 

_________________ 

DEFENCE 

 
 

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver gave rise to a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or 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 and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.  

 

3. The vehicle, which contained the defendant and 5 children inside, entered coronation car park on the evening of 21 July 2021, to find a public toilet for the children to use. The defendant had not visited this car park in a few years, but used it regularly in the past and remembered it used to be a council owned car park that was free after 4pm. The defendant did not see any signs while in the car park, alerting them otherwise. The BPA code of practise requires that additional signage must be in place to alert a driver of any changes. Unfortunately, the toilet was shut so the defendant did what any good parent would do to a desperate young child and found the nearest bush. The car park contained a few other cars, but was more empty than full. There were lots of seagulls flying around and one landed on the car, scaring one of the children, who needed attention to calm down. When all was settled the vehicle left the car park. Various letters from claimant have since been received, which have been intimidating and misleading in nature. 

4. The defendant will provide images later on to show signage is inadequate from the driver's perspective. The new sigh that has replaced the old council one, near the entrance, is smaller in size, therefore making is harder to spot. It is placed on the left-hand side of the road as one drives in, so if the drivers gaze is ahead or to the right, it can be easily missed. The pay and display machine is placed in the far corner of the car park, with the potential of its acknowledgement easily being missed if a vehicle was parked in front of it or if one does not go to this side of the car park. 

5. No effort has been made by the claimant to alert drivers they are being filmed as they enter and leave this car park. It is the defendants opinion that a drop down barrier should be installed at this location on entry. 

6. 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 signed it after full research and having read this defence several times, because the court process is outside of their life experience. The PCN was unfair and predatory and both it and this aggressive and exaggerated claim were an unexpected shock 

7. 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 - no copy of the contract (sign) was served with a Letter of Claim.  The POC is sparse on facts about the allegation, making it difficult to respond in depth at this time.   

8.  This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate fixed sum (routinely added per PCN) despite indisputably knowing that this is now banned.  It seems they have also calculated 8% interest on that false sum. It is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable (authorities: two well-known ParkingEye cases where modern penalty law rationale was applied).  Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.  Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £

Angellicaa

Is it ok to add this

5. No effort has been made by the claimant to alert drivers they are being filmed as they enter and leave this car park. It is the defendants opinion that a drop down barrier should be installed at this location, on entry, to avoid misunderstandings.