Challenge Default Judgement : Premier Park Drop Case. Counterclaim denied.

Johnersh

Isn't the point here that D was never parked on the relevant land so can't possibly have breached any parking term? The vehicle was never stationary on the relevant land.

If it were me, I'd bin the template which contains a lot of generic puff, because the clear factual position here (fairly unique) is otherwise lost. Who cares if you're outraged or that the particulars are rubbish. You've been in front of a judge, if they were that inadequate, he'd have already ordered a fresh set be prepared or struck the claim. IMHO here it's best to focus on the best argument, not obscure it with everything else.

The fact is that fully automated systems are flawed for a site like this - they only record entrance/exit.  The PPC may never considered the position of access to the adjacent site but ANPR isn't proof the o/p remained on site when there's a bl**dy great road that runs out the back of the carpark. Google satellite shows this well.

A witness statement exhibiting a job sheet and/or Google maps image of the site ought to provide sufficient evidence to bounce this. 

KeithP

In your post Today at 3:48PM you quote the Particulars of Claim.

Do the PoC really state the vehicle's registration mark exactly as you have posted?
Accuracy in these matters is important.
If so, then there is no such vehicle. It follows from that, there is nothing for you to defend against.

Also, the Dropbox file linked from your post Today at 1:49PM has your full name and the Claim Number clearly visible. It also mentions a different VRM.
This information is repeated in the Dropbox file linked from your post Today at 5:07PM.

stuart_c2023

@KeithP. The VRM is correct on the PoC. It's been corrupted in C&P onto the forum.

@Johnersh The judge at set aside pretty much said his decision was based on the evidence of the day in Para 3 and he had not taken time to evaluate the "generic legal arguments likely taken from the internet" (his words). It's why I've put the transcript of CEL v CHAN as appendix rather than in the body of the document so that judge will get to crux of the argument earlier.

Johnersh

I’d still prune it significantly, but it’s your call.

You don’t really need to address parliament or even fairness of penalty clauses if the o/p never remained on site to be a party to the contract. All you need do is show it to be a separate site and clearly not the car park C was contracted to manage.

stuart_c2023

Pruned about 10 paragraphs and rearranged to make my unique argument front and centre, but unsure should remove all latest guidance.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/vmuahg3drsaenv4ez027u/K8GF1J0W-defence-240129.docx?rlkey=9m0olw4v59kle2h72dhq7e9z0&dl=0

Coupon-mad

stuart_c2023 said:

Pruned about 10 paragraphs and rearranged to make my unique argument front and centre

Right.  Just looked at your evidence.

It's compelling and they will 100% discontinue next week.

They never had a right (reasonable cause) to get your DVLA data at all. Nor to share your data with debt thugs, nor to intimidate you and pursue this to court, nor to breach the BPA CoP and use an old unchecked DVLA 'car address', nor did they have cause to request judgment.

They will definitely discontinue this claim and run away (no second hearing) unless you counterclaim - which you should add on the end of that defence, without a shadow of doubt.  Costs you £35 CC fee.

Your grounds are breach of the DPA 2018, GDPR 2018, and clear breach of the ICO Code of Practice on Surveillance Cameras which forms a mandatory part of the BPA Code of Practice regarding use of ANPR, which can only be used in a fully enclosed site, unless extra ANPR cameras are placed to exclude those accessing other sites.

You should counterclaim for £300 plus court fees, costs £35.  That pushes it to a hearing.

Unless you've already got your £275 back and would be happy with a discontinuance & walking away in February (no hearing), you need to protect yourself against that, and seek £300 as damages for distress.

.Authorities to support a Part 20 Counterclaim include VCS v Ferguson and Simon Clay v Civil Enforcement Ltd (both successful parking cases where the Defendant successfully claimed £1000+ and £250 respectively, for data abuse.

There is also a good case that what PP have done to you (despite knowing the site is not a single secure site) is a course of conduct meeting the bar for harassment.

Authority for an allegation that this conduct constitutes harassment: Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46 (10 February 2009) where only six or seven letters were sent.

I think the harassment in Ferguson was actually less alarming and damaging than this case where they've roboclaim-bombed the Defendant's credit rating and cost him the chance to get better mortgage rates, phone contracts and other financial options, embarrassed him in front of the Water authority he was working for (having to beg for CCTV and for a letter confirming his innocence, making him feel like a criminal) and at huge cost to his peace of mind.

As well as the tangible cost of a £275 application fee, a £35 set aside fee and two hearings - which this Claimant has unreasonably contested instead of admitting to their error (in not carrying out human checks or using an extra set of cameras to exempt cars using their right of way to access to the Water Authority site at the top) to resolve the dispute without a fight and put him back in the position he should have been in.

Other authorities to support the Part 20 Counterclaim for damages for data abuse, include:

Vidal-Hall & Ors v Google [2015] EWCA Civ 311 (27 March 2015) paras 69, 79, 81 and 139 and also Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd (CCF) [2013] EWCA Civ 333 (15 March 2013), para. 40 onwards, both of which clarify how compensation under the DPA should be assessed in a case alleging Data Protection - misuse of private information - damage under the Data Protection Act

You'd need a skeleton argument attaching your authorities (court transcripts) and one could be CEL v Chan, which will make your defence even more on point.

And don't forget a costs assessment.

stuart_c2023

@Coupon-mad , Thank you very much for taking time to collate this ans sorry to sound naive on this but.

Have to admit if I could recover the £275 set aside fee and costs for attendance of court under CPR27.14 I would rather avoid the counterclaim route but as haven't seen any written judgement from my set aside awarding costs yet are Premier/Gladstones likely to try and ignore that leaving me chasing?

Will the court read my witness defence and judge on my claim for costs within if Claimant doesn't proceed?



 

Coupon-mad

This is why I went into so much immediate detail and said a Counterclaim is the only way to take back control and get your £275 back plus hopefully £300 (and other court fees).

We regulars see this all the time and we know EXACTLY what will happen to you otherwise: 

are Premier/Gladstones likely to try and ignore that leaving me chasing?

Yes. Leaving you up the creek without a paddle.

Will the court read my witness defence and judge on my claim for costs within if Claimant doesn't proceed?

No.

stuart_c2023

Managed to pull together the updated Defence document and counterclaim including schedule of costs, using the exemplary work of @berseker and @ellaro9 tagged below

County Court Claim-QDR solicitors/Met Parking - Page 11 — MoneySavingExpert Forum
90 seconds part two - Page 24 — MoneySavingExpert Forum

Latest version on dropbox
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/qnx6juv50k1v9yjb71mni/Defence-and-counterclaim-240205-REDACTED.pdf?rlkey=3j7jzizro5xg18j8tc0c1p2ez&dl=0

Questions which would be very grateful if anybody has opinion
a) I haven't listed or appended the letters from Debt Recovery Plus. Is it worth it as feel the fact they have pursued me through to County Court sufficient grounds for harassment?
b) Are the costs reasonable ? Probably spent at least 20 hours researching and compiling documents but left it at 10 as don't want to give Judge reason to question or ask for proof

Coupon-mad

Only looked at the start, so far.

The heading should be:

DEFENCE AND PART 20 COUNTERCLAIM

The first paragraph needs a number but I'd split it into para 1 & 2 (see below) and everything needs adapting to suit your unique case. Some if the template defence won't be needed.

I'll look again later on tonight.

Initially, assuming you are admitting to driving (I would) this is how I'd start it, and I'd go through your whole defence, Counterclaim and your WS, and call the area where you parked: 'the enclosed site' throughout to it's easy to follow:

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 Defendant was in breach of any term in the place (hereafter referred to as 'the enclosed site') where he parked.

2.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name at the enclosed site. Liability is denied - the Claim had no prospects of success under the circumstances - and the Defence is followed by a Part 20 Counterclaim, below.