£3000 County Court Claim from Park Direct UK

CluelessDefendant

B789 said:

Don't forget that as part of your defence you can request that the claim is struck out if the PoC is not adequate.

The defendant respectfully would like to draw the courts attention noting that:

1. The Particulars of Claim are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise (a) the contractual term(s) relied upon; (b) the specifics of any alleged breach of contract; or (c) the alleged loss

2. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the Particulars within the Claim Form, to understand properly and specifically what case is being pursued

3. The Particulars appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action"

4. The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form

5. In the opinion of the Defendant it ought to have been entirely possible to deal with the matters outlined above within that character limit but for the fact that generic wording appears to have been applied

6. In the event that it was or is impossible to properly set out the key parts of the claim within the character limit then it was incumbant upon the Claimant to file and serve separate Particulars of Claim within 14 days per 16PD.3

7. The guidance for completing Money Claims Online confirms this and clearly states: "If you do not have enough space to explain your claim online and you need to serve extra, more detailed particulars on the defendant, tick the box that appears after the statement 'you may also send detailed particulars direct to the defendant.'"

AND UPON no further particulars having been filed

AND UPON it having been entirely within the Claimant's Solicitors' gift to properly plead the claim at the outset

AND UPON the claim being for a sum, well within the small claims limit, such that the Defendant considers it disproportionate and at odds with the overriding objective (in the context of a failure by the Claimant to properly comply with rules and practice directions) to order further particulars, to which a further defence might be filed, followed by further referral to a Judge for directions and allocation

IT IS REQUESTED that:-

1 The Claim is struck out

Or words to that effect. At least bring it to the judges attention for consideration.

Coupon-mad said:

DCB Legal were dispatched to chase me up but the CCC has come directly from the parking company.

Really, are you sure it's not via DCBLegal?

Please copy & paste the Particulars of claim here, redacting your VRM.

The PoC:

"Park Direct UK Ltd are a private parking enforcement company employed by the landowners for the enforcement and control of parking on their land (Defendants housing estate and tennis court parking adjacent to it) to prevent abuse of their parking terms & conditions. Vehicle registration number XXXXXXX whereby the defendant was the legal registered keeper, were issued with 15 Parking Charge Notices (totalling £2550) (inclusive of debt recovery charges) for breaching the advertised terms of parking. PCN issued: XXXXX x15. PCN's/ notice to keepers and reminders have been issued to the keeper. All PCN's have been issued to the keeper. All PCN's have been issued in accordance with the Protection of Freedom Act 2012."

Yes, they made a typo in this short claim, do people not spell check anymore? 

The signed claimant at the bottom is "Park Direct UK Ltd" so I do believe it's them who've made the claim.

B789

I'd still bring it to the judges attention in the defence that the PoC have failed all the points made in my post. That and all the excellent advice you get from the others on here.

CluelessDefendant

B789 said:

I'd still bring it to the judges attention in the defence that the PoC have failed all the points made in my post. That and all the excellent advice you get from the others on here.

Really appreciate it, thanks 

Mouse007

Time to pay very close attention to the detail.

"Park Direct UK Ltd are a private parking enforcement company employed by the landowners for the enforcement and control of parking on their land (Defendants housing estate and tennis court parking adjacent to it) to prevent abuse of their parking terms & conditions.”

Their ? Whose terms & conditions? This wording is coloured - it suggests ...

Suggests to me the parking terms and conditions of the landowners, not the PCC. Where are those Ts&Cs? Your parent's lease I would say, not the PCC's sign.

And you say

“There is no mention of parking agreements or permits in our tenancy”<br>

So, there you have it - there are NO terms & conditions of parking to enforce.

Follow the same logical approach to the nonsense argument they make about the advertised terms of parking. What exactly do the signs say - and how does that contradict their opening statement - “to prevent abuse of their (WHOSE?) parking terms & conditions.”

This, as in every other case I’ve viewed on here over the last 10 months, boils down to a battle over words and which side of the bell curve you v they are on.

CluelessDefendant

Mouse007 said:

Time to pay very close attention to the detail.

"Park Direct UK Ltd are a private parking enforcement company employed by the landowners for the enforcement and control of parking on their land (Defendants housing estate and tennis court parking adjacent to it) to prevent abuse of their parking terms & conditions.”

Their ? Whose terms & conditions? This wording is coloured - it suggests ...

Suggests to me the parking terms and conditions of the landowners, not the PCC. Where are those Ts&Cs? Your parent's lease I would say, not the PCC's sign.

And you say

“There is no mention of parking agreements or permits in our tenancy”<br>

So, there you have it - there are NO terms & conditions of parking to enforce.

Follow the same logical approach to the nonsense argument they make about the advertised terms of parking. What exactly do the signs say - and how does that contradict their opening statement - “to prevent abuse of their (WHOSE?) parking terms & conditions.”

This, as in every other case I’ve viewed on here over the last 10 months, boils down to a battle over words and which side of the bell curve you v they are on.

We've lived here for 15+ years so I'm not sure where to get my the rent ToCs, but I am calling the landowner on Monday to have a chat with them about the situation and see what they say. We did have a change in rent last year and I have the letter for that and there is no mention of parking anywhere on it... Is that viable at all? 

Apologies if I was unclear before, we rent on a council estate, so I'm not sure if we are leaseholders. I promise I'm not as dumb as I might come across, but this is all new to me. No better time to learn I guess.

Mouse007

CluelessDefendant said:

... but this is all new to me. No better time to learn I guess.

and it was all new to me 10 months ago - when do you stop learning? 20 years ago my 4 year old son would have told you - you never stop learning.

You don't come across as dumb, the claimant does - see it, exploit it, say it.

CluelessDefendant

Mouse007 said:

CluelessDefendant said:

... but this is all new to me. No better time to learn I guess.

and it was all new to me 10 months ago - when do you stop learning? 20 years ago my 4 year old son would have told you - you never stop learning.

You don't come across as dumb, the claimant does - see it, exploit it, say it.

I was just thinking couldn't the claimant use the fact that I had a permit in 2018 and then again recently to say that I did agree to the ToCs? 

Coupon-mad

Yes, I think they have filed that claim.  I don't think you can use the argument that the claim is poorly pleaded.  It doesn't give dates of the PCNs but as these were at your residence I think you probably know about them?

"15 Parking Charge Notices (totalling £2550)"

They've added £70 per PCN (a false add-on that the DLUHC called 'extortion').  It is ludicrous to expect the court to grant £1050 for a few chaser letters that the 15x £100 more than covers!  They must think the Judge was born yesterday.

Over a grand added as some sort of 'late fee' when even a B2B contract can't add more than £70 (once...) and consumer contracts are exempt from that legislation.

Such tiresome rubbish.

Coupon-mad

CluelessDefendant said:

Hi All

I have found myself in quite the predicament with a county court claim being issued just over a couple weeks ago and was hoping someone can help me out as I've never been in this situation before. 

To put things into perspective, around 4 years ago we had a Park Direct UK police our estate as parking was getting out of control. I initially had a permit in 2019 for the year but wasn't notified when my permit ran out and started getting issued tickets. I have to admit, after reading some misinformation online, I decided to ignore the tickets and evidently they piled up. 

I live with my parents who are the lease holders of the property which we live in. There is no mention of parking agreements or permits in our tenancy letter so we've never signed any letters to agree to pay money to external parking companies to have the privilege of parking outside my house.

It should be noted that people on our estate are trying to get rid of this company because of the poor service they're providing and the way they target specific cars as others on our estate don't have a permit. Examples:

• There is a person who is obviously selling cars from our car park but he never gets ticketed, I've seen the enforcer walk past his car many times without giving it a thought.
• the bays are numbered and allocated but nobody adheres to this as people park in random bays. 
• We have a visitors bay that gets ticketed if you park in it without a permit. (I once paid for this spot on an online app and still received a ticket for it although I'm unsure if its included in the court case as I'm still waiting on SAR response)
• They had no signs on the main road until last week, I have pictures of the lack of signs as evidence. 
• The signs that are there are placed quite high on building and are unlit, quite difficult to see as it is small print, again, evidence. 
• People block up the road all the time and don't park in bays and they never receive tickets, I have evidence of this too, what's the point paying for a parking permit if they don't even stop the problems we got them to solve. 
• The sign stated you need to display a visible permit, but nobody does as it is digital. 

I know I'm an idiot for letting it get to this, I did eventually get another permit a couple of months ago but I really don't think I should pay £3000 for parking outside my house. They never sent me any info on when my permit ran out, or how to apply for a new one I had to find out from a neighbor yet they didn't have any trouble finding me to demand £160 for each ticket. 

I probably will try to settle but is there any point trying to fight this? It's causing me a lot of stress as I'm a recent grad and really don't have that type of money to spare   

I'm at work at the moment but please ask any questions you might have in case I missed anything. 

Quoting the above to remind us all of the background facts.

Mouse007

CluelessDefendant said:

I was just thinking couldn't the claimant use the fact that I had a permit in 2018 and then again recently to say that I did agree to the ToCs? 

Nope, contract law. Offer, acceptance and consideration. What was given in return for displaying a permit that you were not already entitled to do?

You had a right to park. Granted by your parent’s lease.

No one can tool along afterwards and offer you the right to park. You already had that right.

No one can impose conditions on that right which you already had.

No one can say there are additional rules which are not in the first contract - your parent’s lease.

Your problem here is the battle of words - and dealing with solicitors and judges who know nothing about the law. Much like HMRC know nothing about tax - which is my day to day problem.