Parking Charge Court Claim Form - Need Urgent Help Please!!

UNITED92

Hello everyone - I hope you can help me with this situation, given I'm really not an expert in any of this but feel as though I'm in a tricky situation where the courts are involved. 

I've read all the newbies notes/threads - being honest, it's quite complicated what to do and not to do. A bit difficult to follow but I've done my best. I'm filing a defence for a claim from Civil Enforcement LTD. Ultimately I made an honest mistake - I paid for a ticket, thinking it needed to be paid until 6pm when in fact the time I needed to pay until was 6.30pm. It was an honest mistake and I'm now being asked to pay near £300 for overstaying by 32 mins. I received multiple letters which were very aggressive and at the time I thought could be a scam. Nevertheless - it looks like I'm going to have to file a defence which I've written below and wanted some guidance as this really isn't something I'm familiar with.

Details of the case:

• Have proof of a valid ticket but overstayed by half an hour
• Received multiple letters but ignored as I thought it could be a scam or mistake - given I thought I'd paid for a valid ticket
• All ANPR - no ticket on windshield
• I've been overseas so have come back to this stressful situation. 
• Claim form issue date 28 June 23
• Have acknowledged of service as per guidance on this forum - disputed
• Will be writing to the local MP - as honestly I can't quite believe how much they're charging and how much this feels like a scam/wrongdoing

Please please can some of the pro's or experienced people on here give my defence a read and give me guidance. I've no idea when I need to submit this by, hoping I've not missed the deadline. Thank you so so much for any help in advance. 

....

1.     The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. 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 was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. 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 and driver of the vehicle.

3.     On 27th February 2022, the Defendant visited [Place where I parked] to do some shopping at the shops local surrounding the car park and meet friends for a meal at a local restaurant.

The defendant purchased and displayed a paper ticket, of which there is record (see below) allowing them to park until 17:58. The defendant believed the car park payment end time was 18:00 and paid accordingly. It was only this past month the defendant has returned to the car park to check appropriate signage and realised the end time is actually 18:30. The original payment to 17:58 was an honest mistake.

The Defendant works in the local area, is very fond of the area and has only ever been a net positive contributor to this area and would not ever purposefully or intentionally not pay what was owed, or take any service/facility for granted. This is the first parking ticket the defendant has received within district despite visiting two-to-three times per week.

When the Defendant first received a letter asking for a penalty payment, the defendant thought it must be a mistake given they had paid for a valid ticket. The defendant then received multiple aggressive letters, most of which sounded threatening, worrying, intimidating and quite frankly confusing from the Claimant and other organisations regarding the matter. During this period the Defendant researched and looked up the company online, only to find many comments from other people calling out the Claimant as scammers and fraudsters with guidance to ‘avoid at all costs’ – see evidence below. This made the Defendant more cautious to get in touch and/or give over any details to the Claimant, believing this could be an attempt to scam the Defendant, particularly given their threatening letters, online profile and ultimately as the Defendant felt they had correctly paid for a parking ticket for multiple hours that day.

The Defendant is truly sorry for the honest mistake of overstaying 32 minutes without payment and would like to settle the difference taking into account the £7.50 already paid for parking on the day.

The Defendant asks that reasonable consideration please be given to the situation and to use this case as an example to prove that corporations should not be allowed to intimidated good, hard working people by unfairly claiming hundreds of pounds of loss when the amount in question is closer to two to three pounds. The Defendant feels this is incredibly unethical particularly given the current cost of living crisis.

4.     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 using, in part, pre-written wording suggested by a reliable online help resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. 

5.     With regard to template statements, the Defendant observes after researching other parking claims, that the Particulars of Claim ('POC') set out a cut-and-paste incoherent statement of case.  In breach of the pre-action protocol for 'Debt' Claims, no copy of the contract (sign) accompanied any Letter of Claim.  The POC is sparse on facts and specific breach allegations, which makes it difficult to respond in depth at this time; however this claim is unfair, generic and inflated.  

etc etc etc. Unable to post the rest as I'm a newbie. but goes to point 27, followed by statement of truth.

---

Please help!!!

Le_Kirk

Too much information for a defence, reads more like a witness statement (WS).  Just keep it to short punchy legal/technical arguments and you can provide evidence and back up your defence with the narrative in the WS. All paragraphs require a number.  The signage was obviously deficient if you did not see that you had to pay until 18.30.  On the claim form, what do the particulars of claim state?  Does it mention overstay or underpayment or is it just generic "failed to adhere to conditions"?  Don't make their case for them.

UNITED92

Ok thanks a lot for you help Le_Kirk. I will do my best to reduce text and make it more punchy, albeit I'm not familiar with what constitutes a legal argument? could you expand on narrative in the WS - I don't follow?

Particulars of the claim are generic, no mention of overstay or underpayment: Claim for money relating to a Parking Charge for breach of TCs. Drivers may only park pursuant to TCs... agreed upon on entry/parking. ANPR cameras monitors drivers entering/exiting & TC breaches. Charges of GBP £170 claimed (+ interest & other court/legal fees) = £280

Am I at risk of getting a CCJ by fighting this? I really don't want to pay to these crooks but the threat of a CCJ is a bit scary. 

UNITED92

Doesn't look like I can edit my posts yet. WS = Witness statement. Understood. Thanks!

UNITED92

Ok have had another go, making it shorter and more punchy...

1.     The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected and stressful shock. 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 was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. 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 and driver of the vehicle.

3.     On 27th February 2022, the Defendant visited [place where I parked] to do some shopping at the local shops and meet friends for dinner.

4.     The Defendant purchased and displayed a paper ticket, of which there is record (see evidence below) allowing them to park until 17:58. The Defendant believed the car park payment end time was 18:00 and paid accordingly. The Defendant feels the signage in operation was unclear but still paid & displayed a parking ticket.

5.     The Defendant has been cautious to not respond to the Claimant, given their threatening/intimidating communication, online profile suggesting they’re a fraudulent operation (see evidence below) and a lack of information/validity to the Claim. The Claim is vague and there is no mention of overstay or underpayment in the particulars of the claim. The defendant is not liable for these inflated charges and has paid and displayed a parking ticket during their stay in accordance to what they believe the confusing signage requested.

6.     The Claimant is unfairly claiming a grossly inflated loss of hundreds of pounds when the Defendant has clearly paid and displayed a parking ticket.

7.     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 using, in part, pre-written wording suggested by a reliable online help resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. 

etc etc etc. Unable to post the rest as I'm a newbie. but goes to point 27, followed by statement of truth.

---

Let me know your thoughts - thanks again!

Coupon-mad

Am I at risk of getting a CCJ by fighting this?

Not at all - as long as you follow all our advice.  Even if you lost you'd pay less than the claim and no CCJ remains.

Why not just use the defence by @Johny86 except for his paras 3 & 4 which you need to replace.  Easy stuff... but do NOT rush this in July - unless your deadline is due. 

What is the Issue Date of the claim?

On what date does your MCOL History say you did the AOS?  

KeithP

UNITED92 said:

• Claim form issue date 28 June 23
• Have acknowledged of service as per guidance on this forum - disputed

With a Claim Issue Date of 28th June, I am going to assume that you filed an Acknowledgment of Service sometime after 3rd July and before 18th July. Please confirm - your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer.

With a Claim Issue Date of 28th June, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 31st July 2023 to file your Defence.

That's just a few days away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave the preparation of it to the last minute. However, you should leave the filing of it as late as possible.

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'.

UNITED92

Evening... really appreciate your help...

Filed the AoS on the 9th July. Noted on the 31st July end date to submit Defence. Will submit the Defence before end of week and understood on how to submit Defence. Will do it during work hours via email/guidance on newbies thread.

Regarding the Defence - does the above edited version read better? I will request an SAR in the meantime but am unsure how best to word the Defence and whether the case I'm making above is strong?

Coupon-mad - How do I access Johny86's Defence - are you able to share a link please as I'm unable to access their posts via their profile?

thanks!

 

Umkomaas

How do I access Johny86's Defence - are you able to share a link please as I'm unable to access their posts via their profile?

Tap on his @Johny86 username to take you to his Profile page. Scroll down, under 'Activity' tap 'Threads', find his 'UKPC Court Claim' thread, tap.  OK?

UNITED92

Thanks Umkomaas that does help - I'm finding it difficult to locate the latest template however. I've found the announcement thread (edited for March 2022)  but none of the Google/Dropbox links for the latest template work. People have referenced using the first page of that thread (on page 24) but that post is dated 2020 and is different to @Johny86 posts on UKPC Court Claim. I wanted to ensure the template and text I'm using is current. I'm afraid I'm not finding that thread or locating the latest template very clear.

Nevertheless, I'll pull the text from @Johny86 thread, re-format it and edit the first few paragraphs. Hopefully that covers all points from the new template. 

UNITED92

Ok edited in accordance to your guidance above... any thoughts?

1.     The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim were an unexpected shock. 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 was a breach of any prominent term, and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars. 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.     It is admitted that on the material date the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. 

3.     On 27th February 2022, the Defendant visited [place where I parked] to do some shopping at the local shops to the car park. The defendant purchased and displayed a paper ticket, of which there is record (see evidence below) allowing them to park until 17:58. The defendant believed the car park payment end time was 18:00 and paid accordingly.

4.     The Defendant has been cautious to not respond to the Claimant, given their threatening/intimidating communication, online profile suggesting they’re a fraudulent operation (see evidence below) and a lack of information/validity to the Claim. The Claim is vague and there is no mention of overstay or underpayment in the particulars of the claim. The defendant is not liable for these inflated charges and has paid and displayed a parking ticket during their stay.

5.     The Particulars of Claim ('POC') 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”. 

6.     The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued. 

7.     The POC 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; and (c) how the purported and unspecified 'damages' arose and the breakdown of the exaggerated quantum. 

8.     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.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and requires proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3 

9.     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.'" 

10.  No further particulars have been filed and to the Defendant's knowledge, no application asking the court service for more time to serve and/or relief from sanctions has been filed either. 

11.  In view of it having been entirely within the Claimant's Solicitors' gift to properly plead the claim at the outset and 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) for a Judge to throw the erring Claimant a lifeline by ordering further particulars (to which a further defence might be filed, followed by further referral to a Judge for directions and allocation) the court is respectfully invited to strike this claim out. 

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. 

--- goes to paragraph 35, followed by statement of truth and evidence.

thanks!