New Generation Parking Management & DCB Legal Claim Stage

Jinef

Hi all,

I have parked in a private car park in 2019 whilst attending an event where I was providing professional services. This was a venue I had not visited before and the layout was unknown to me. On arrival I explained to the door staff at the venue I had heavy equipment to carry in and was directed to park nearby the entrance where several other vehicles were. This was in November at and as such was it was dark and the weather was rainy.  I was focused on getting the equipment into the venue and doing my role as opposed to where I was parked at the time and did not notice any signage or otherwise indicating I was parked in an incorrect location.

Subsequently I received a PCN from New Generation Management Parking Ltd in 2019 (registered to the keeper of the vehicle which is my spouse) which stated the reason as:

Reason: NOT REGISTERED ON SITE

Appeal to landowner step:

I did try and contact the parking company by phone and request the details of the landowner as this venue was clearly separate and the area in which I parked was a non descript trading estate however they refused stating GDPR. I returned to the site and there was signage in place however not illuminated.

I found the details of the landowner and spoke to the manager of the venue where I was providing services. It seems these are both adversarial and I received a written response from the business which I had inadvertently parked outside saying they sympathised with my situation however due to anti-social behaviour from the venue and it's clientele the parking company had been contracted for this reason. They have provided in writing that that the venue routinely directs it's customers to park in this location despite knowing this will likely lead to them receiving fines and then denies all knowledge of it.

I then received a LBC and requested a SAR.

I have the SAR which has given me two photographs where my parked vehicle and signage is visible in frame.

I am now at claim stage and have sent off an AOS.

Claim date was Late July
Claim for: circa £280

What's my best angle for defence? I genuinely had no idea at all I was in a restricted space as I was instructed to park there and my mind was on providing the services / getting the equipment into the venue. However this is difficult to prove and they have in their SAR evidence of me logging into their online portal / contacting them and images of my vehicle and signage present.

Draft Defence (Need assistance please!!):

I have sent off the MCOL in my Spouse's name as they are the registered keeper. They are happy for me to defend it in their name however they are much more inclined to just pay everything as opposed to defend / challenge this, is this allowed? They digitally signed the AOS declaration of course.

I have not stated who was driving at any point and I am planning on defending the claim entirely from the keeper's perspective, is this correct?

Is my defence based around my lack of knowledge I was entering into presumed contract? Could the adversarial nature of the two business owners and the written account from one be used to support my defence?

I have not yet complained to my MP however this has clearly happened to other people so is this recommended as part of the defence or in a hope to apply pressure to cancel prior to court?

<p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.&nbsp; 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.</p><p>The facts as known to the Defendant:</p><p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied.</p><p>3.&nbsp; <i>The defendant, whilst not driver of the vehicle at the time, is aware the driver was instructed to park in this location ?</i></p>

KeithP

Jinef said:

I am now at claim stage and have sent off an AOS.

Claim date was 28th July

I have sent off the MCOL in my Spouse's name as they are the registered keeper. They are happy for me to defend it in their name however they are much more inclined to just pay everything as opposed to defend / challenge this, is this allowed? 

With a Claim Issue Date of 28th July, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 30th August 2022 to file your Defence.

That's two 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'.

It is important that everything is done in the name of the named Defendant.

When or if it comes to a hearing then the named Defendant must attend but can be assisted by you.


Difficult to read your version of a Defence but I have removed the 'code' tabs and reproduced it here...

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 and driver of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied.

3.     The defendant, whilst not driver of the vehicle at the time, is aware the driver was instructed to park in this location ?

Your proposed paragraphs 2 and 3 are contradictory.
Was the Defendant the driver or not?

Coupon-mad

The Defendant does not pay it.  Defendant defends the scam claim and wins.  Defendant will pay nothing.

Is this what you are intending to put as point #3  of the Template Defence?  It's not clear to me what this is, because this first part is not in the template in these words (but it is all in there already, in different words, so this first part isn't needed):

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:
It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied.
The defendant, whilst not driver of the vehicle at the time, is aware the driver was instructed to park in this location ?

Please add more to the second part there to explain to the Judge how the D knows that the driver was authorised, and what sort of car park it is and what business the driver had to park there.

Jinef

Hi KeithP and Coupon-mad,

Thanks your replies and sorry for the delay responding. Please find an amended Part 2 & 3 defence section:

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.     It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but was not the driver at the time. Liability is denied on separate grounds.

3.     The driver of the vehicle while attending a location not known to them for the purpose of providing professional services enquired where to park from authorised personnel at the time of arrival. The driver of the vehicle was instructed to park adjacent to the entrance of the venue alongside other parked vehicles, this was to facilitate easy access as they carried with them heavy equipment for their role they were providing. At this time of year and day the car park was in darkness and weather conditions were also inclement with rain and light fog, thus any signage present was not immediately apparent and not clearly illuminated. The driver had little reason to suspect they were parked in an unauthorised location due to these signs and their true held belief they had been directed to park by authorised persons. It was only on the receipt of the Parking Charge Notice issued by New Generation Parking Management the Defendant, and driver, became aware of the contravention and the alleged entry into an agreed contract with the Claimant. On return to the site to gather evidence to defend the claim, it is noted that the only demarcation between the venue car park and the Claimant's client car park is a 30cm x 40cm (Appendix 1) unlit notice to one side of an unmarked bollard. It is unreasonable to act with the intention that this would be routinely noticed by any person with a belief they had authorisation to enter. In attempts to settle the dispute swiftly and without court involvement the Defendant made contact with the Claimant by telephone requesting details of their client landowner details, they responded they would be unable to provide this due to GDPR. The Defendant then contacted the second nearest company premises to the location where the alleged contravention took place, in a written exchange the manager of this company explained (Appendix 2) how the original venue the Driver was proving services at routinely instructs it's clients to park in this location and instructs them to ignore any claim proceedings or repercussions from this. The Defendant contacted the manager of the venue the driver provided services to by telephone who provided their details (Appendix 3) and was met with this described response and adversarial and negative attitudes towards neighbouring businesses. Considering the Defendant is now defending a claim for a substantial amount of money for the actions of irresponsible and adversarial business owners  this matter has been raised as a complaint to the Defendant's local MP.

Is this better? Are appendices helpful? I have a picture of the small sign stating the separation of the parking areas however not sure if that helps my case or not.

Coupon-mad

No attaching anything at defence stage. Your evidence comes later on.

Remove this, not needed as the denial of liability is already in para 1 of the Template Defence:

Liability is denied on separate grounds.

You could add to para 2, this:

The Claimant is put to strict proof of their full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 if they are relying upon it to hold the Defendant keeper liable. Absent the application of the only 'keeper liability' law, then as a matter of fact and law, there is no cause of action against the Defendant.



And remove all of this (every word) which you will keep for witness statement & evidence stage:

"It was only on the receipt of the Parking Charge Notice issued by New Generation Parking Management the Defendant, and driver, became aware of the contravention and the alleged entry into an agreed contract with the Claimant. On return to the site to gather evidence to defend the claim, it is noted that the only demarcation between the venue car park and the Claimant's client car park is a 30cm x 40cm (Appendix 1) unlit notice to one side of an unmarked bollard. It is unreasonable to act with the intention that this would be routinely noticed by any person with a belief they had authorisation to enter. In attempts to settle the dispute swiftly and without court involvement the Defendant made contact with the Claimant by telephone requesting details of their client landowner details, they responded they would be unable to provide this due to GDPR. The Defendant then contacted the second nearest company premises to the location where the alleged contravention took place, in a written exchange the manager of this company explained (Appendix 2) how the original venue the Driver was proving services at routinely instructs it's clients to park in this location and instructs them to ignore any claim proceedings or repercussions from this. The Defendant contacted the manager of the venue the driver provided services to by telephone who provided their details (Appendix 3) and was met with this described response and adversarial and negative attitudes towards neighbouring businesses. Considering the Defendant is now defending a claim for a substantial amount of money for the actions of irresponsible and adversarial business owners  this matter has been raised as a complaint to the Defendant's local MP."

Jinef

Thanks for your response, so just to be clear I can submit my defence with the following Paragraphs 2 & 3 and the rest of the template unaltered:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but was not the driver at the time. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 if they are relying upon it to hold the Defendant keeper liable. Absent the application of the only 'keeper liability' law, then as a matter of fact and law, there is no cause of action against the Defendant.

3. The driver of the vehicle while attending a location not known to them for the purpose of providing professional services enquired where to park from authorised personnel at the time of arrival. The driver of the vehicle was instructed to park adjacent to the entrance of the venue alongside other parked vehicles, this was to facilitate easy access as they carried with them heavy equipment for their role they were providing. Owing to the time of year the car park was in darkness and weather conditions were also inclement with rain and light fog, thus any signage present was not immediately apparent and not clearly illuminated. The driver had little reason to suspect they were parked in an unauthorised location due to these signs and their true held belief they had been directed to park by authorised persons.

Is this all I need to send for the initial defence?

Coupon-mad

Yes within the Template defence...as long as it is true that you were not driving, of course!  No lies in a court defence.

Fruitcake

The defence must come from the defendant and be in their name, but you can assist.

I suggest you add a new paragraph 4 and renumber the rest, that the judge in the Jopson vs Homeguard case determined that loading and unloading is not parking. This was an appeal court case, number B9GF0A9E and so is persuasive on the lower courts. The transcript is available online, and the judge's comments about loading is around paragraphs 19 and 20 of the judgment.

Fruitcake

You seem bent on helping the claimant. Parking companies read this forum.

Jinef

Hi all,

As anticipated this has now reached the point where I have received a 'Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing)' with a deadline for witness statements in a few days time. I have also received the parking company's witness statement which seems comprehensive and includes appendices.

No contact or offer of settlement has been offered.

Would gladly receive some advice at this point!

KeithP

Assuming you have already filed and served your Witness Statement and evidence, it's just a case now of reading and picking holes in their WS ready for the hearing.


Have you seen this video?...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93eoaxhzpU

Just three or four people sitting round a table having a discussion.

That video was made a few years ago and most hearings nowadays seem to be via telephone or video link.