Missed the appeal and given 14 days to pay up

Diaz13

Ok ill take it all out and simplify it. 

Yes sorry forgot to include the word not. Well spotted! If I'm honest no this is not true. Does this have any implications?

Also when at this defence stage are PE likely to back down or do they continue the whole way?

troublemaker22

Of course you have to be honest.   Have a look at the end of the Defence:

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true. The Defendant understands that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Diaz13

Well technically I never got any of the letters sent as my partner threw them away but I can't really say that in my defence.

Any suggestions? 

Diaz13

Or should I just not say anything at all? I'm guessing if I did that PE will win.

Coupon-mad

Just do what the template defence tells you to do (with the truth, of course...the Template does state 'ONLY IF TRUE').

Diaz13

So I have taken a huge chunk out. Could someone please kindly check before I submit? I will of course sort the re-numbering out.

In addition I went to visit the retailer today and they agreed they would send me an email saying they have no issues with me parking my car for longer than the 2 hour stay. If the email arrives I will add this into the defence, but should I add this as a separate appendix to the defence or should i send it to PE in the hope they will cancel this off?

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 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". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, whilst the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper, the Defendant does not know who was driving the vehicle.

9. The Defendant submits that he has not had sight of any communications from the Claimant and therefore was not afforded any method to appeal, nor any information about complaints procedures, to the landowner. This omission prevented the Defendant from being able to appeal to the Retailer and/or Landowner and also prevented the Defendant from being able to lodge an appeal with POPLA. If these options had been made available, the Defendant would have undertaken them.

10. On 12th January 2024 the Defendant contacted ParkingEye to attempt establish details of the claim and requested the following:

·       An explanation of the cause of action.

·       Confirmation of whether ParkingEye intended to pursue the Defendant as driver or keeper.

·       Confirmation that ParkingEye were relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

·       What the details of the claim are (where it is claimed the car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed).

·       A copy of the contract with the landowner under which ParkingEye assert authority to bring the claim.

·       A copy of any alleged contract with the driver.

·       A plan showing where any signs were displayed.

·       Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed).

·       Details of whether ParkingEye added anything on to the original charge and if so, what the additional charge(s) represents and how it has been calculated.

To date the Claimant has failed to respond to these requests for information.

The Defendant therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as disclosing no cause of action and having no reasonable prospect of success.

 

18. 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:

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

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

19. 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

20. 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.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle, but they are none the wiser as to the specific alleged breach, which is denied.  Whatever the allegation turns out to be, it must be common ground that the terms have been complied with or substantially complied with, and the Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen.  The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty (not saved by the ParkingEye v Beavis Supreme Court case, which is fully distinguished).  Further, in a new tactic only seen from this Claimant in Summer 2023, the sum claimed under purported 'contract' is disproportionately exaggerated by £20 which was not on the signs.  The Defendant takes the point that enhancing their claim on either impermissible sums or on an incorrect basis, is reason enough to disallow the claim.

Coupon-mad

Diaz13 said:

Ok ill take it all out and simplify it. 

Yes sorry forgot to include the word not. Well spotted! If I'm honest no this is not true. Does this have any implications?

We can't help if you persist in lying in a defence.  Your new version says this which you then said above is not true:

"the Defendant does not know who was driving the vehicle."

If the email arrives I will add this into the defence, but should I add this as a separate appendix to the defence.

No.  Please read the NEWBIES thread second post because no evidence goes yet.

Obviously you mention this conversation with the retailer in the defence though.

You are not meant to remove ANY of the Template Defence so we assume your re-numbering will create somewhere near 40 paragraphs?

Diaz13

The bit in the template where it states here you add in your own words what your defence is. If I was driving and I have no real defence is this what I am supposed to then say? Sorry but I'm confused here as my only real defence is that my partner through the letters away without consulting me first. But this is clearly an extremely weak defence. 

Or should I just not say anything at all? And use purely the defence template and that's it?

Diaz13

So I have edited this again. Can you please advise on whether I should completely remove Point 3? Is this defence strong enough? Do most claims go away at this stage if there is nothing further to add to the template?

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 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". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, whilst the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

3. On 12th January 2024 the Defendant contacted ParkingEye to attempt establish details of the claim and requested the following:

·       An explanation of the cause of action.

·       Confirmation of whether ParkingEye intended to pursue the Defendant as driver or keeper.

·       Confirmation that ParkingEye were relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

·       What the details of the claim are (where it is claimed the car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed).

·       A copy of the contract with the landowner under which ParkingEye assert authority to bring the claim.

·       A copy of any alleged contract with the driver.

·       A plan showing where any signs were displayed.

·       Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed).

·       Details of whether ParkingEye added anything on to the original charge and if so, what the additional charge(s) represents and how it has been calculated.

To date the Claimant has failed to respond to these requests for information.

The Defendant therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as disclosing no cause of action and having no reasonable prospect of success.

 

4. 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:

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

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

5. 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

6. 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.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle, but they are none the wiser as to the specific alleged breach, which is denied.  Whatever the allegation turns out to be, it must be common ground that the terms have been complied with or substantially complied with, and the Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen.  The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty (not saved by the ParkingEye v Beavis Supreme Court case, which is fully distinguished).  Further, in a new tactic only seen from this Claimant in Summer 2023, the sum claimed under purported 'contract' is disproportionately exaggerated by £20 which was not on the signs.  The Defendant takes the point that enhancing their claim on either impermissible sums or on an incorrect basis, is reason enough to disallow the claim.

Coupon-mad

No remove all that - that's NOT a defence - BUT YOU CANNOT LEAVE IT WITH NO FACTS.

Write about being the driver and why you were there/how long for and for what purpose, and why you didn't know about any supposed terms (because the signs were crap or unlit at night is the usual reason).