Premier Park

[Deleted User]

Exaggerated Claims and ‘market failure’ currently examined by the Government

22.  The Claimant has not provided any evidence of the additional charges. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation of how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £271.41. The Claimant has inexplicitly added ‘costs or damages’ bolted onto the alleged PCNs, despite using a solicitor to file the claim, who must be well aware that the CPR 27.14 does not permit such ‘admin’ charged to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

 

23.  The heavily quoted case of ParkingEye v Beavis (Ref: UKSC67) confirmed that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead their case in damages and could only collect the already inflated parking charge (in that case, £85) which more than covered the very minimal costs of running an automated/template letter parking regime. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show how any alleged costs/damages have been incurred and that it formed a prominent, legible part of any terms on signage, and that it was in fact, expended. To add vague damages plus alleged 'legal costs' on top is a wholly disingenuous attempt at double recovery, and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.

 

24.  The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot have exceeded £100 per charge (the industry cap set out in the applicable Code of Practice at the time). I have seen no evidence that the added damages/fees are genuine.

 

25.   I say that fees were not paid out or incurred by this Claimant, who is to put strict proof of:

(i) the alleged breach, and

(ii) a breakdown of how they arrived at the enhanced quantum claimed, including how interest has been calculated, which appears to have been applied improperly on the entire inflated sum, as if that figure was immediately overdue on the day of an alleged parking event.

26.  This Claimant routinely pursues a disproportionate additional fixed sum (inexplicably added per PCN) despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban or substantially reduce the disproportionate 'Debt Fees'. This case is a classic example where the unjust enrichment of exaggerated fees encourages the 'numbers game' of inappropriate and out of control bulk litigation of weak/archive parking cases. No pre-action checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit, position of signs/the vehicle, or a proper cause of action.

 

27.  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (the DLUHC) first published its statutory Parking Code of Practice on 7th February 2022, here: 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice 

"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."

28.  Despite legal challenges delaying the Code's implementation (marking it as temporarily 'withdrawn' as shown in the link above) a draft Impact Assessment (IA) to finalise the DLUHC Code was recently published on 30th July 2023, which has exposed some industry-gleaned facts about supposed 'Debt Fees'. This is revealed in the Government's analysis, found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

 

29.  Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 reveal that the parking industry has informed the DLUHC that the true minor cost of what the parking industry likes to call debt recovery or 'enforcement' (pre-action) stage totals a mere £8.42 per recovery case.   30.  With that sum in mind, it is clear that the extant claim has been enhanced by an excessive amount, disingenuously added as an extra 'fee'. This is believed to be routinely retained by the litigating legal team and has been claimed in addition to the intended 'legal representatives fees' cap set within the small claims track rules. This conduct has been examined and found - including in a notably detailed judgment by Her Honour Judge Jackson, now a specialist Civil High Court Judge on the Leeds/Bradford circuit - to constitute 'double recovery' and the Defendant takes that position. 31.  The new draft IA now demonstrates that the unnecessarily intimidating stage of pre-action letter-chains actually costs 'eight times less' (says the DLUHC analysis) than the price-fixed £70 per PCN routinely added. This has caused consumer harm in the form of hundreds of thousands of inflated CCJs each year that District Judges have been powerless to prevent. This abusively enhanced 'industry standard' Debt Fee was enabled only by virtue of the self- serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies, influenced by a Board of parking operators and debt firms who stood to gain from it. 32.   In support of my contention that the sum sought is unconscionably exaggerated and thus unrecoverable, attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] (Ref: UKSC67) case I have mentioned above. 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 (decision later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating a parking charge to £135 was not a true reflection of the cost of a template letter and 'would appear to be penal’. 33.   This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs because the full parking charge (after expiry of the discount) is already high and more than covers what the Supreme Court called an 'automated letter-chain' business model that generates a healthy profit. In Beavis, there were 4 or 5 letters in total, including pre-action phase reminders. The £85 parking charge was held to cover the 'costs of the operation' and the DLUHC's IA suggests it should still be the case that the parking charge itself more than covers the minor costs of the pre-action stage, even if and when the Government reduces the level of parking charges. 34.  Whilst the new Code is not retrospective, the majority of the clauses went unchallenged by the parking industry and it stands to become a creature of statute due to the failure of the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes. The DLUHC's Secretary of State mentions they are addressing 'market failure' more than once in the draft IA, a phrase which should be a clear steer for Courts in 2024 to scrutinise every aspect of claims like this one. 35.  In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable. It is also disproportionate and in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA). Conclusion 36.  The claim is entirely without merit. The Defendant believes that it is in the public interest that claims like this should be struck out because knowingly enhanced parking claims like this one cause consumer harm on a grand scale. 37.  There is now ample evidence to support the view (long held by many District Judges) that these are knowingly exaggerated claims. The July 2023 DLUHC IA analysis surely makes that clear because it is now a matter of record that the industry has told the Government that 'debt recovery' costs eight times less than they have been claiming in almost every case. 38.  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. 39.  Attention is drawn specifically to the (often-seen) distinct 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 & signature/date.  

Le_Kirk

3.     The Defendant draws to the attention of the court that there is now a persuasive appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on appeal). The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction. By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based on the following persuasive authority.

Still using the defendant!

[Deleted User]

Le_Kirk said:

3.     The Defendant draws to the attention of the court that there is now a persuasive appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on appeal). The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction. By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based on the following persuasive authority.

Still using the defendant!

oh gosh so sorry!!! All references of 'defendant' now say I!!!

Coupon-mad

The format of the photo evidence should be as separate numbered exhibits, with a contents page listing them.  Exactly as you see in the 5 linked username examples in the NEWBIES thread.

You also don't appear to have all the usual exhibits as per the a-f list.

[Deleted User]

Coupon-mad said:

The format of the photo evidence should be as separate numbered exhibits, with a contents page listing them.  Exactly as you see in the 5 linked username examples in the NEWBIES thread.

You also don't appear to have all the usual exhibits as per the a-f list.

When I submit the exhibits it will read correctly, its just cutting and trying to paste into this forum isnt the easiest as there is a limit on size. I just added in the photos really so you could see what I was describing.

Other than that, all ok?

Coupon-mad

If all that second half 'blurb' was in your defence (which it was, if you used our template defence) don't repeat it.

1505grandad

Also multiple references to a "fine"  -  suggest replace with "parking charge"

Many instances of incorrect spelling of "Judgment"  -  i.e. no middle "e" in this context  - see docs you are exhibiting.

[Deleted User]

Coupon-mad said:

If all that second half 'blurb' was in your defence (which it was, if you used our template defence) don't repeat it.

but the witness statement begins;

 In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated and I will say as follows:

Is it the exaggerated claims section you mean I should take out?

Coupon-mad

By saying "My defence is repeated" that negates any need to actually repeat it!

[Deleted User]

the vehicle is on a long term lease, does any of this apply to us?

Schedule 4, paragraphs 13 and 14, of POFA 2012 sets out the strict terms under which the hirer may become liable instead of the keeper. These include that: • you are given a signed statement from the vehicle-hire firm within 28 days of the Notice to Keeper, along with a copy of the hire agreement and a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer, and • these statements contain the details set out in paragraph 13 of Schedule 4. Your Notice to Hirer must satisfy the detailed requirements of paragraph 14, including: • the contents you need to include in the Notice to Hirer – paragraph 14(5) • the documents you must send with it – paragraphs 13(2) and 14(2) • the methods of serving the Notice to Hirer – paragraph 14(6) • the deadlines by which the Notice to Hirer must be served – paragraphs 14(2) and 14(3). We believe that where possible parking enforcement