Parking Charge Court Claim

coraljo1

Is it worth adding something along these lines?

  By processing my personal data that it was never entitled to have, to demand monies it was never entitled to seek, for an unconscionable five years after receiving and ignoring my appeals, the Claimant stands in breach of their statutory duty under the Data Protection Act 1998 ('the 1998 Act') now repealed, and the Data Protection Act 2018.  The Claimants were thereby under a statutory duty to process my data only in strict accordance with a) the Data Protection Principles as set out in the 1998 Act Schedule 1, in particular Data Protection Principles 1, 2 and 5; and b) the GDPR Articles 5 (1)(a) and (b) and 6 (1)(f)).   

Coupon-mad

Yes - it is all true, so why not?!

coraljo1

Complete draft of Defence.  Too much or not enough? 

DEFENCE

The facts as known to the Defendant

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charges and the claim were an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  All liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle.

3. The Defendant denies any claims being made by the Claimant.  The Defendant was never at Lakeside Village Outlet Centre on 26th December 2017, and did not drive the vehicle at any time on that date.

4.  The Claimant was made aware of this fact in the Defendant’s letter to the Claimant dated 4th February 2018. A copy this letter has been included with my Defence

5. The claimant has no right to assert that the defendant is liable based on reasonable assumption. PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, "There is no reasonable presumption in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort"(2015).

6. The Defendant supplied the Driver details to the Claimant after establishing who the driver had been on that day, in the Defendant’s letter dated 23rd March 2018. 

7. The Defendant cannot be held liable if the Claimant has not complied with the POFA 2012 and (because they held the driver's details) should not have pursued this at all, let alone stated in their Particulars that the Defendant is able to be pursued 'as keeper'.  This is denied.  They cannot because the driver's details are known.

8, Implying that a keeper could be 'assumed' liable/responsible for the actions of a driver was identified by the DVLA as 'a significant breach' of the Trade Body Code of Practice. UK Parking Control was a member of the British Parking Association at the time. It is contended that this is exactly what the claimants are now doing in this vexatious and wholly unreasonable claim.

9..  The Defendant had loaned the vehicle to a party of visitors from Sweden for Christmas and New Year.

10.  One of the passengers who travelled with the group to Lakeside Village Outlet on the 26th December 2017 has Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (a disability) which is why the vehicle had been parked in a disability bay.

11.. The Claimant was advised of this fact in the Defendant letters dated 4th February and 23rd March 2018. It was also suggested to the Claimant that their refusal to acknowledge this information could be considered a breach of the Equality Act 2010.

12. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  To pre-empt the usual template responses from this serial litigator: the court process is outside of the Defendant's life experience and they cannot be criticised for adapting some pre-written wording from a reliable advice resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. 

13.  By processing my personal data that it was never entitled to have, to demand monies it was never entitled to seek, for an unconscionable five years after receiving and ignoring my appeals, the Claimant stands in breach of their statutory duty under the Data Protection Act 1998 ('the 1998 Act') now repealed, and the Data Protection Act 2018.  The Claimants were thereby under a statutory duty to process my data only in strict accordance with a) the Data Protection Principles as set out in the 1998 Act Schedule 1, in particular Data Protection Principles 1, 2 and 5; and b) the GDPR Articles 5 (1)(a) and (b) and 6 (1)(f)).   

14. Should the Claimant attempt to claim five years interest, the court is urged to disallow that possibility entirely, since the delay in proceeding to court in this instance is the Claimant's alone. Old, unclaimed 'parking charges' are now being relentlessly and suddenly resurrected by this Claimant using DCB Legal to file scattergun copy & paste 'robo-claims'

15.  This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate fixed sum (routinely added per PCN) despite knowing that this is now banned. 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 £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment.  Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (sitting at the High Court; later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating it to £135 'would appear to be penal'.

16. This finding is underpinned by the Government, who have now stated that attempts to gild the lily by adding 'debt recovery costs' were 'extorting money'.  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') published in February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice, found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice

17. Adding costs/damages/fees (however described) onto a parking charge is now banned. In a section called 'Escalation of costs' the incoming statutory Code of Practice says: "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued." 

18. The Code's Ministerial Foreword is unequivocal about abusive existing cases such as the present claim: "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists." 

19. The DLUHC consulted for over two years and considered evidence from a wide range of stakeholders.  Almost a fifth of all respondents to the 2021 Technical Consultation called for false fees to be scrapped altogether; this despite the parking industry flooding both public consultations, some even masquerading as consumers. The DLUHC saw through this and in a published Response, they identified that some respondents were 'parking firms posing as motorists'.  Genuine consumer replies pointed out that successful debt recovery does not trigger court proceedings and the debt recovery/robo-claim law firms operate on a 'no win, no fee' basis, seeking to inflate the sum of the parking charge, which in itself, is already sufficiently enhanced.  

20. Whilst the new Code and Act is not retrospective, it was enacted due to the failure of the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes of Practice.  The Minister is indisputably talking about existing (not future) cases when declaring that 'recovery' fees were 'designed to extort money'.  A clear steer for the Courts.

21. The claim is entirely without merit and the Claimant is urged to discontinue now, to avoid incurring costs and wasting the court's time and that of the Defendant. 

22. In the matter of costs, the Defendant asks:

(a) at the very least, for standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) for a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, seeking costs pursuant to CPR 46.5. 

22.  Attention is drawn specifically to the (often-seen from this industry) possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not normally apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."   

 

Statement of Truth

Coupon-mad

3. The Defendant denies all allegations being made by the Claimant.

" A copy this letter has been included with my Defence"

No it isn't!  No evidence is attached yet.

Remove the phrase in #17 that says the added fake £70 fees are 'banned'. I know it's in the template defence but seeing as you asked for critique let's remove the phrase for now, from yours.   Because the Code is on hold and that particular decision is still up in the air.

You seem to have chopped out a lot of the end of the template which means you have unnecessarily thrown away the 'lack of ADR and 'lack of landowner authority' points.  Not advisable to drop those.

coraljo1

Remove the phrase in #17 that says the added fake £70 fees are 'banned'. I know it's in the template defence but seeing as you asked for critique let's remove the phrase for now, from yours.   Because the Code is on hold and that particular decision is still up in the air.

You seem to have chopped out a lot of the end of the template which means you have unnecessarily thrown away the 'lack of ADR and 'lack of landowner authority' points.  Not advisable to drop those.

#17 doesn't contain that phrase, and I can't find that phrase anywhere else.  Do you mean for me to remove #17?

Have made your suggested change to #3.

The parts "chopped" are because I don't know, or don't understand if they are  applicable in this case.

KeithP

coraljo1 said:

Remove the phrase in #17 that says the added fake £70 fees are 'banned'. I know it's in the template defence but seeing as you asked for critique let's remove the phrase for now, from yours.   Because the Code is on hold and that particular decision is still up in the air.

You seem to have chopped out a lot of the end of the template which means you have unnecessarily thrown away the 'lack of ADR and 'lack of landowner authority' points.  Not advisable to drop those.

#17 doesn't contain that phrase, and I can't find that phrase anywhere else.  Do you mean for me to remove #17?

The suggestion was that you remove the phrase containing the word 'banned'.
So para 17 becomes...
17. In a section called 'Escalation of costs' the incoming statutory Code of Practice says: "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued." 

coraljo1 said:

Remove the phrase in #17 that says the added fake £70 fees are 'banned'. I know it's in the template defence but seeing as you asked for critique let's remove the phrase for now, from yours.   Because the Code is on hold and that particular decision is still up in the air.

You seem to have chopped out a lot of the end of the template which means you have unnecessarily thrown away the 'lack of ADR and 'lack of landowner authority' points.  Not advisable to drop those.

The parts "chopped" are because I don't know, or don't understand if they are  applicable in this case.

Perhaps you need to take/make time to understand those sections 'chopped'.
They all add to the completeness of your Defence.
You would be unwise to remove them.

coraljo1

KeithP said:They all add to the completeness of your Defence.

You would be unwise to remove them.

As the Defendant was not the driver, and was never at the site of the alleged offence, would they be in a position to rely on any comments about signage?

KeithP

coraljo1 said:

KeithP said:They all add to the completeness of your Defence.

You would be unwise to remove them.

As the Defendant was not the driver, and was never at the site of the alleged offence, would they be in a position to rely on any comments about signage?

Yes of course they can.

The Defendant can make a subsequent visit to the site to be able to make a good appraisal of the signs.

Alternatively, the Defendant can always speak to the driver and ask him/her about the signs.

Google Street View, and the wider internet, may help with that too.

Coupon-mad

The whole case hinges firstly on signage, regardless of whether a Defendant was driving.

You need to add back in the bits chopped out.

coraljo1

c-m I'd added some in last night before I saw your post.  tried to copy it onto here, but deleted it because it had removed all the line spacing i.e. it was just a long block of text which was not easy to read.  Maybe if I put it on in sections?

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charges and the claim were an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  All liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

3. The Defendant denies all allegations being made by the Claimant.  The Defendant was never at Lakeside Village Outlet Centre on 26th December 2017 and did not drive the vehicle at any time on that date.

4.  The Claimant was made aware of this fact in the Defendant’s letter to the Claimant dated 4th February 2018.

5. The claimant has no right to assert that the defendant is liable based on reasonable assumption. PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, "There is no reasonable presumption in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort"(2015).

6. The Defendant supplied the Driver details to the Claimant after establishing who the driver had been on that day, in the Defendant’s letter dated 23rd March 2018. 

7. The Defendant cannot be held liable if the Claimant has not complied with the POFA 2012 and (because they held the driver's details) should not have pursued this at all, let alone stated in their Particulars that the Defendant is able to be pursued 'as keeper'.  This is denied.  They cannot because the driver's details are known.

8, Implying that a keeper could be 'assumed' liable/responsible for the actions of a driver was identified by the DVLA as 'a significant breach' of the Trade Body Code of Practice. UK Parking Control was a member of the British Parking Association at the time. It is contended that this is exactly what the claimants are now doing in this vexatious and wholly unreasonable claim.