County Court - Euro Car Parks £1,924. Parking at work

Rorythoperr

Hi,

hoping for a bit of advice.

The idiots at Euro Car Parks and CST Law have sent me a county court claim for £1,924.

This is for 9 tickets back in 2019/2020.

Background:
I worked at a gym (total fitness) and the car park was managed by Euro Car Parks. 
My car and registration was on the exempt list.
I worked at the gym for 10 years (parking there 6 days a week = circa 3,120 days).

From Dec 19 - Mar 20 I got 9 parking tickets (didn't find out at the time - got a letter months later but don't still have this). 
- This happened to a lot of us at the gym and the general manager said there must be some issue with the system and she'd get it sorted.
I have an email from her saying "I'm unsure as to why this has happened and it has happened to a few staff members since returning. [...] totally agree you should not have got a ticket."

I don't work at the gym anymore and neither does that general manager.

Now I have a country court claim that's been trumped up to £1,924 and I'm just writing up my defence.
I've done everything else advised:
SAR to euro car parks (they haven't replied)
emailed CST denying debt and asking them to put on hold for 30 days (they haven't replied)
AOS done
I've also contacted total fitness to make a formal complaint about the fact this wasn't sorted 3 years ago. They've been worse than useless tbh. This week they asked Euro Car Parks "if there's anything they can do" (rather than demanding the fines were cancelled). Euro Car Parks have come back to say the fines still stand, the landowner wants them to continue (I'm trying to find out who this is and will message them also) and the the exempt registration they have on file is a car I last owned/drove in 2017.
2 years prior to the first fine! 
I've demanded the exemption list and dates (and their data protection policy if they're holding this data about me without my knowledge or consent). During the 10 years I worked there I drove 3 different cars - so this is wrong anyway.

was just hoping for a bit of advice on the wording for my defence. I'm following this template and just changing point 3.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1

DEFENCE (any feedback would be gladly received)

Background
It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper and probable driver of vehicle registration mark XXX which is the subject of these proceedings.

It is admitted that on (Wed) 18.03.20, (Fri) 13.03.20, (Mon) 09.03.20, (Wed) 04.03.20, (Mon) 24.02.20, (Thu) 13.02.20, (Wed) 15.01.20, (Mon) 30.12.19 and (Tue) 10.12.19 the Defendant's vehicle was almost certainly parked at XXX because this was the defendant’s workplace, where they were de facto authorised to park a roadworthy vehicle.

Frustration of Contract

The defendant worked at this gym and parked in this carpark for 10 years. The defendant worked 6 days a week – Monday-Friday 6am-8pm and Saturday 7am-1pm. The defendant’s car was parked in this car park during these times. This equates to 3,120 days the defendant parked in this car park.

There is a VRM staff exemption list at this location. As a member of staff for 10 years the defendant was on this exemption list from 2011-2021. During this time the defendant never received a parking fine – except for these 9 incorrectly filed fines.

The defendant was first made aware of these incorrect claims months later. The defendant alerted the general manager of the gym who confirmed: "I'm unsure as to why this has happened and it has happened to a few staff members since returning. [...] totally agree you should not have got a ticket." A copy of this email will be provided to the court, together with witness evidence that the defendant was a member of staff at this time and therefore on the exemption list.

The defendant knows of at least 4 other staff members who incorrectly received parking tickets during this time: Mike XXX, John XXX, Remy XXX and Angela XXX. None of the other staff members have been pursued through the courts by Euro Car Parks.

The defendant was the registered owner of the above mentioned vehicle since 2017. A copy of this will be provided to the court. In 2017 the defendant confirmed the car make, model and registration with the general manager so the exemption list could be updated with the new details. The general manager confirmed this update had been actioned and again in writing confirmed that the defendant was exempt and “totally agree you should not have got a ticket”. This was 2 years prior to the defendant receiving the first incorrect car parking charge.

Clearly there is no 'legitimate interest' supporting these enhanced parking charges in these circumstances and also no reason for the Claimant to sit on their hands for 4 years hoping to profit even further from exaggerated interest calculations.

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the fact the defendant was a member of staff at this time, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant parking area, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle. Witness evidence will be provided to the Court that prior permission to park had been given and that this is still standard practice.

Accordingly it is denied that:
- there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
- the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

B789

First of all, can we see the PoC. There is a very recent appeal judgment that may assist you in getting this thrown out at allocation stage. Which solicitor are they using? What is the "issue date" of the claim?

Rorythoperr

Hi, sorry I don't have the POC. 
I have the letter before claim and the court claim form. Would you like me to share either of those?
The solicitor is CST Law
The issue date is (for the court claim form) is the 15th September.
I completed the AOS on the 26th Sep (I believe I have 28 days from the 15th September to send my defence?)

Coupon-mad

Then you do have the POC!

B789

Rorythoperr said:

Hi, sorry I don't have the POC. 
I have the letter before claim and the court claim form. Would you like me to share either of those?
The solicitor is CST Law
The issue date is (for the court claim form) is the 15th September.
I completed the AOS on the 26th Sep (I believe I have 28 days from the 15th September to send my defence?)

The court clim form has the PoC towards the bottom left. Either post a picture of them (redact anything that has your personal details, VRM, PCN number, claim number and the MCOL password)

Rorythoperr

thanks so much

Coupon-mad

The worst POC ever.

No details about how many PCNs. It gives TWO DATES of PCNs yet tries to claim two grand!

Just see the thread by @andyl3004 and @xavian1234 for the extra stuff to add to the Template Defence.

KeithP

Rorythoperr said:

The issue date is (for the court claim form) is the 15th September.
I completed the AOS on the 26th Sep (I believe I have 28 days from the 15th September to send my defence?)

With a Claim Issue Date of 15th September, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 18th October 2023 to file your Defence.

That's three 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'.

Half_way

You should also be taking this up with the Gym where you worked .

 There should be no asking for them to cancel this, you should be telling them they must cancel this and instruct their agents to discontinue the claim with immediate effect

You must remind the gym that they are jointly liable for the actions of their agents, and as you had permission to use the space and had provided the vehicle registration number of the vehicle why they thorough their agents actions have allowed this to happened, and have not only failed in their duty of care but have also failed to adhere to the Genreal Data protection regulations with regards to accuracy of data, and just cause to process such personal data.

 And as a direct result of their incompetence you have been put in a position that has/is causing you undue stress and worry .

 You must be blunt to the point of being rude ( and beyond) with the Gym, this is their mess to clear up and compensate you for.  Do not pussyfoot around

B789

This added into your defence should hopefully see the claim thrown out at allocation stage:

Failure to comply with Civil Procedure Rules

1. Recent persuasive Appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44, attached) would indicate the PoC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Directions Part 16.  In the cited case HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'.  The Defendant asserts that this Claim is based upon an agreement by conduct.  The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has failed to specify how Contract terms have been breached by the conduct of the Defendant in the PoC. 

2. The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out at Allocation stage and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/xy54utt9djv55xitfp7lk/CEL-appeal-transcript.pdf?rlkey=304syf9czf5arl3i1u1ircjln&dl=0

Rorythoperr

Claim No.

Euro Car Parks Limited

(Claimant)

- and -

(Defendant)

_________________ DEFENCE

1. 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 in breach of any term. Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) 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 boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC is devoid of any detail and even lacks specific breach allegation(s), making it very difficult to respond. However, it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle.

3.

Background
It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper and

probable driver of vehicle registration mark

which is the subject of these

proceedings.

It is admitted that on (Wed) 18.03.20, (Fri) 13.03.20, (Mon) 09.03.20, (Wed) 04.03.20, (Mon) 24.02.20, (Thu) 13.02.20, (Wed) 15.01.20, (Mon) 30.12.19 and (Tue) 10.12.19 the Defendant's vehicle was almost certainly parked at Elms Square Whitefield because this was the defendant’s workplace, where they were de facto authorised to park a roadworthy vehicle.

Frustration of Contract

The defendant worked at this gym and parked in this carpark for 10 years. The defendant worked 6 days a week – Monday-Friday 6am-8pm and Saturday 7am-1pm.

The defendant’s car was parked in this car park during these times. This equates to 3,120 days the defendant parked in this car park. There is a VRM staff exemption list at this location. As a member of staff for 10 years the defendant was on this exemption list from 2011-2021. During this time the defendant never received a parking fine – except for these 9 incorrectly filed fines. The defendant was first made aware of these incorrect claims months later. The defendant alerted the general manager of the gym who confirmed: "I'm unsure as to why this has happened and it has happened to a few staff members since returning. [...] totally agree you should not have got a ticket." A copy of this email will be provided to the court, together with witness evidence that the defendant was a member of staff at this time and therefore on the exemption list. The defendant knows of at least 4 other staff members who incorrectly received
parking tickets during this time: Mike		, John	, Remy		and
Angela	. None of the other staff members have been pursued through the
courts by Euro Car Parks.
The defendant was the registered owner of the above mentioned vehicle since 2017. A copy of this will be provided to the court. The defendant confirmed the car make, model and registration with the general manager so the exemption list could be updated. The general manager confirmed this update had been actioned and again in writing confirmed that the defendant was exempt and “totally agree you should not have got a ticket”. This was 2 years prior to the defendant receiving the first incorrect car parking charge. Clearly there is no 'legitimate interest' supporting these enhanced parking charges in these circumstances and also no reason for the Claimant to sit on their hands for 4 years hoping to profit even further from exaggerated interest calculations. Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the fact the defendant was a member of staff at this time, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant parking area, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle. Witness evidence will be provided to the Court that prior permission to park had been given. Accordingly it is denied that: - there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant - the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss. - the Claimant has suffered or incurred any 'damages or indemnity costs if applicable'

4. The Defendant did not receive initial communication from the Claimant until the present Claim was submitted despite the fact that the Government's new statutory Code (linked later in this defence) requires a fresh Notice to be served at the original rate, and appeal to be made available, in cases where the first Notice was not received.

5. In addition to these facts, a recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and the Practice direction to Part 16. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The Defendant asserts that this Claim is based upon an agreement by conduct. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has failed to specify how Contract terms have been breached by the conduct of the Defendant in the POC. See below.

6. Similarly, at the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing. See below.

7. Likewise, in January 2023 (also without a hearing) District Judge Sprague, sitting at the County Court at Luton, struck out a similarly badly-pleaded parking claim with a full explanation of his reasoning. See below.

8. Furthermore, at Manchester District Judge McMurtrie and District Judge Ranson also struck out a claim (again without a hearing) on the grounds of POC’s lacking clarity, detail, and precision. As stated in the final image below, the Claimant’s solicitors – DCBLegal - confirmed they would not file an amended POC, demonstrating again the reliance of a number of firms on robo-letters and illegitimate practices. See below.

9. The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out at Allocation stage and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs.

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

10. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park,

requires prominent signs and lines.

11. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the

circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the

Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK

Government

12. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap). It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred by this Claimant, who is put to strict proof of:

(i). the alleged breach, which is not pleaded in the POC and requires further and better particulars, and

(ii). a breakdown of how they arrived at the enhanced sum in the POC, including how interest was calculated, which looks to be improperly applied on the entire inflated sum, as if that was all overdue on the day of the alleged event.

13. The Defendant avers that this claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due, whether in debt or damages. This Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it.

14. This case is a classic example where adding exaggerated fees funds the 'numbers game' of bulk litigation of weak and/or archive parking cases. MoJ statistics of bulk litigators reveal that there are several hundred thousand parking claims per annum, with some 90% causing default CCJs totalling hundreds of millions of pounds. No checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit or a proper cause of action (given away by the woefully inadequate POC).

15. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') published a statutory Parking Code of Practice in February 2022,
here: link

The Ministerial Foreword is damning: "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."

16. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code - marked as temporarily withdrawn - it is thankfully 'live' after a draft Impact Assessment (IA) was published on 30th July 2023. The Government's analysis exposes what they say are industry-gleaned facts about supposed 'fees'. The analysis is found

here: link

17. Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 state that the parking industry has shown the DLUHC that the true minor cost of what the former calls debt recovery or 'enforcement' ( = pre- action) stage totals a mere £8.42 per case (not per PCN).

18. With that in mind, it is clear that the extant claim has been enhanced by an extreme sum, believed to be routinely retained by the litigating legal team, not the Claimant. In this Claim it is additional to the intended 'legal representatives fees' cap set within small claims track rules. This conduct has been examined and found - including in a detailed judgment by Her Honour Judge Jackson, now a specialist Civil High Court Judge on

the Leeds/Bradford circuit - to constitute 'double recovery'. The Defendant takes that position.

19. The draft IA shows that the intimidating letter-chains actually cost 'eight times less' than the seemingly 'price-fixed' +£70 per PCN. This causes consumer harm in the form of almost half a million wrongly-enhanced CCJs each year, that District Judges are powerless to prevent. This false fee was enabled by the self-serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies who suddenly aligned in 2021 re allowing +£70, each led by a Board of the very parking operators and debt firms who stood to gain from it.