URGENT Help!. County Claim from PCM and gladstones

rb_help

Hi Everyone. Need help with a defence for county claim form from PCM.

I have read the newbies thread and seen the defence template. Just wanted to discuss a few things first and give a little background.

So i live in a private estate, PCM manages parking. I have a RESIDENTS PERMIT to park.

the PCNs (5) given were during a time of some construction in the estate which over the past few months have taken up even more parking spaces since. anyways my PCNs were given for parking out of bay .my partner was 7/8 months pregnant and i had parked outside the flats (not in parking bays) due to no parking spaces in the immediate vicinity. now i argued that a few times but as the estate is very large they expected me to park elsewhere even though getting to the other estate entrances is around 4 mins drive and longer distance to walk back . at times we had atleast 4 or 5 other cars parking similar also.

anyways alot of PCNs were coming through, some were left on windscreen and some just through post. after getting no where with PCM i just ignored any notices that came and any subsequent debt letters etc until i received this claim.

Now in the particulars of claim I am getting chased for 5 PCN's . 1 Dated 14/01/2023 and 4 PCN's (Yes FOUR) all for the same date which is 20/12/2022. I wanted to know if that is an ERROR on their part as I do not remember getting that many in a single day. It says I parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the contract) along with £100 per pcn they have added £70 per pcn contractual costs along with interest of £48 at 8%. so total costs of £1038.47 even though i have a parking permit and literally no loss to the land owner.

I have emailed the Land Owner to complain viciously and have asked them if they can get the claim cancelled on my behalf but not sure if that will help.

I have started the MCOL to do a AOS which i read through the newbies thread to get some time for my defence.

Claim issue date 12 Oct 2022
AOS done on 22 Oct 2022

I know my next steps is to get the defence template and adjust paragraphs that I need to edit but I wanted some help wording a defence and also wanted to know about the 4 PCNs that are dated the same day. I have no recollection of that many but I know the only reason I was getting PCN's were for parking out of bay

I also didnt keep any PCNs or notices, letters etc from them or debt companies etc. (how silly of me)

Thanks for reading , hoping for a reply soon.

Coupon-mad

You mean 2023 not Oct 2022!

Now in the particulars of claim I am getting chased for 5 PCN's . 1 Dated 14/01/2023 and 4 PCN's (Yes FOUR) all for the same date which is 20/12/2022.

Show us the POC (minus the VRM only).

And use the Template Defence.

Have a look as well at the defence by @Rorythoperr - NOT TO COPY VERBATIM but to see how he covered the fact the POC only states two dates and the claim tries to get a four figure sum with no breakdown of heads of cost or even the breach allegations. 

Show us your draft.

KeithP

rb_help said:

Hi Everyone. Need help with a defence for county claim form from PCM.

I have started the MCOL to do a AOS which i read through the newbies thread to get some time for my defence.

Claim issue date 12 Oct 2022
AOS done on 22 Oct 2022

Hello and welcome.

With a Claim Issue Date of 12th October, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 14th November 2023 to file your Defence.

That's almost 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'.

rb_help

@Coupon-mad

Thanks for getting back to me.

This is the POC

The Driver of the vehicle with reg XXX parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the contract) at xxxx on 14/01/2023, 20/12/2022, 20/12/2022, 20/12/2022, 20/12/2022, thus incurring the parking charges (PCN's). the PCNs were not paid within 28 days of issue. The claimant claims the unpaid PCNs from the defendant as the driver/keeper of the vehicle. despite demands being made the defendand has failed to settle their outstanding liability. THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £100 per PCN, £70 per PCN contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £48.47 pursuant to s69 of county courts act 1984 at 8% per annum ,continuing at 0.19p per day.

Amount Claimed £898.47
Court Fee £70
Legal rep £70
Total Amount £1038.47

Defence so far

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').

2. 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; (c) the alleged loss or overriding legitimate interest supporting the three figure sum claimed; or (d) the specifics of the ‘relevant contract or obligation’ relied upon to find the Defendant liable as driver/keeper.

3. 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 appears 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, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

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

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

6. 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”. 

7. 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.

8. In view of 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 direction) for a Judge to strike this claim out.

9.  The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgement to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based on the following persuasive authority.

10.   A recent persuasive appeal judgement in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction 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 same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgement, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

11. The Defendant noticed a lack of parking bays due to ongoing construction in the car park and had to park as close as possible to the apartment to allow the Defendants heavily pregnant partner to disembark with ease.

11. 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 by the current occupant and leaseholder of [address], whose leaseholder agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease 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. A copy of the leasehold agreement will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.

12. Maintaining the residents' rights to peaceful enjoyment of the property does not include allowing everyone to be unfairly charged by a lurking ex-wheelclamper for normal life necessities like parking to unload groceries, building materials, ease of access etc.  Clearly there is no 'legitimate interest' supporting these enhanced parking charges in these circumstances and also no reason for the Claimant to profit even further from exaggerated interest calculations.

13. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

14. Accordingly it is denied that:

14.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
14.2. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
14.3.  the Claimant has suffered or incurred any 'damages or indemnity costs if applicable' as vaguely stated in the template POC; or that
14.4. the Claimant could now (without offending against the doctrine of good faith) attempt to claim a disingenuous reward of ever-increasing interest on a three figure sum.

End (Rest of the defence is from the defence template)

I put in as much legal stuff as I can but im not sure if it flows.
The main argument was that I had to park as close as i can as my partner was heavily pregnant at the time (last trimester) and due to all the construction all bays on our side of parking unavilable (very very big estate with different entrances) 

@KeithP

thanks I will keep the dates in mind

Coupon-mad

Very good.

Jopson will be important.

Move 9 and 10 up to be para 3 onwards, and there's meant to be a sub-heading above them, as seen in the example linked in the Template Defence.

For some reason you haven't shown the transcript of CEL v Chan?! The whole point is to show the allocating judge that decision.

Not sure why you haven't admitted to being keeper and driver, given you've made it obvious in para 11 that you parked the vehicle.  And why haven't you stated there too, to inform the Judge nice and clearly, that you live at this estate and have access rights as a resident that are in all fours with the persuasive Appeal case of Jopson v Homeguard.

State that you were neither unauthorised, nor in breach of any relevant obligation, nor even parked in the few minutes it took to escort your wife inside and carry unload from the car, the bags of shopping which included heavy and/or bulky baby/Christmas purchases that your heavily pregnant partner was unable to carry.

You should mention as well that the POC are so generic and poor that they have cited 'nonsense' dates and this alone should be enough to convince the court to strike the claim out at allocation stage:

14/01/2023, 20/12/2022, 20/12/2022, 20/12/2022, 20/12/2022,

UncleThomasCobley

Why haven't you added the CEL v Chan judgment as your Preliminary matter for paras #2 and #3 and then renumber the rest after.

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

3. 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(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. 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 same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

[Embed images of the transcript here]

rb_help

@Coupon-mad

Thanks for feedback. yh I saw the template headings but once I started puttings things in I lost track of heading .
I thought the images to the Cel V Chan was for when evidence is gathered. Thanks il correct that right away.

I am the driver as i have the car but the car is not registered in my name. finance company sent few PCNs my way.

I put in para three admitting to being registered keeper which should say driver so il update that once paragraphs are sorted.

and add in the part of the nonsense dates showing four dates are exactly the same. 

Cheers

@UncleThomasCobley

Thanks. I thought that was for evidence later. Il add that in right away.
Jus wanted to know the order.

Para 1
Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out (As you mentioned)
Para 2
Para 3
Do I need to put a Facts Known to the defendant section here?? 

Hope to hear from you soon. Thanks

rb_help

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

Parking Control Management (UK) Limited

(Claimant) 

- and -  

xxxxxx                      

 (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').

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgement to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

3. A recent persuasive appeal judgement in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. 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 same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgement, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

4. This 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. In the opinion of the Defendant, it ought to have been entirely possible to deal with the matter within the character limit but for the fact that generic wording appears to have been applied.

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

6. 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”. 

7. 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.

8. In view of 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 direction) and asks for a Judge to strike this claim out. 

9.The POC are so generic and poor that the Claimants have cited 'nonsense and repetitive’ dates and this alone should be enough to convince the court to strike the claim out at allocation stage. Here  are the multiple dates in question: 14/01/2023, 20/12/2022, 20/12/2022, 20/12/2022, 20/12/2022

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

10. The Defendant lives at (Address) as a leasehold tenant and as per the tenancy agreement is authorised on the estate and as such has access rights that are in all fours with the persuasive Appeal case of Jopson V Homeguard. It is admitted that the Defendent is the driver of the vehicle in question.

11. The Defendant noticed a lack of parking bays due to ongoing construction in the car park. It is also noted the Defendant was neither unauthorised, nor in breach of any relevant obligation, nor even parked in the few minutes it took to escort his partner inside and carry and unload from the car, the contents of the boot which included heavy and bulky purchases that his heavily pregnant partner was unable to carry.

12. 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 by the current occupant and leaseholder of [address], whose leaseholder agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease 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. A copy of the leasehold agreement will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.

13. Maintaining the residents' rights to peaceful enjoyment of the property does not include allowing everyone to be unfairly charged by a lurking ex-wheelclamper for normal life necessities like parking to unload groceries, building materials, ease of access etc.  Clearly there is no 'legitimate interest' supporting these enhanced parking charges in these circumstances and also no reason for the Claimant to profit even further from exaggerated interest calculations.

14. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

15. Accordingly it is denied that:

15.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
15.2. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
15.3.  the Claimant has suffered or incurred any 'damages or indemnity costs if applicable' as vaguely stated in the template POC; or that
15.4. the Claimant could now (without offending against the doctrine of good faith) attempt to claim a disingenuous reward of ever-increasing interest on a three figure sum.

16. 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.

17. 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

18. 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.

19. This claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due 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.

20. This is a classic example where adding exaggerated fees funds bulk litigation of weak and/or archive parking cases. No checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit or a cause of action (given away by the woefully inadequate POC).

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

22. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code (temporarily withdrawn) it is now 'live' after a draft Impact Assessment (IA) was published on 30th July 2023. The Government's analysis is found here:  (link)

23. Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 state that the parking industry has shown the DLUHC that the true minor cost of pre-action stage totals a mere £8.42 per case (not per PCN).

24. This claim has been enhanced by a disproportionate sum, believed to enrich the litigating legal team. It appears to be double recovery, duplicating the intended 'legal fees' cap set by small claims track rules.

25. The draft IA shows that the intimidating letter-chains endured by Defendants cost 'eight times less' than the  fixed +£70 per PCN. This causes immense consumer harm in the form of some half a million wrongly-enhanced CCJs each year, that Judges are powerless to prevent.  MoJ statistics reveal several hundred thousand parking claims per annum, with c90% causing default CCJs totalling hundreds of millions of pounds. The false fee was enabled by the self-serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies who aligned in 2021 to allow +£70, each led by a Board comprising the parking and debt firms who stood to gain from it. 

26. It is denied that the added damages/fee sought was incurred or is recoverable. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis.  Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment.  Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (decision ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs' inflating a PCN to £135 exaggerated the cost of template letters and 'would appear to be penal'.

27. This Claimant has not incurred costs. A PCN model already includes what the Supreme Court called an 'automated letter-chain' and it generates a healthy profit. In Beavis, there were 4 pre-action letters/reminders and £85 was held to more than cover the minor costs of the operation (NB: debt collectors charge nothing in failed collection cases).

28. Whilst the new Code is not retrospective, all non-monetary clauses went unchallenged. It will replace the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes, which are not regulation and carry limited weight.  It is surely a clear steer for the Courts that the DLUHC said in 2023 that it is addressing 'market failure'.

29. At last, the DLUHC's analysis overrides plainly wrong findings by Circuit Judges steered by Counsel in weak appeal cases that the parking industry steamrollered through. In Vehicle Control Services v Percy, HHJ Saffman took a diametrically opposed position to that taken by DJ Hickinbottom, DJ Jackson (as Her Honour Judge Jackson then was), and other District Judges on the North Eastern Circuit, including DJ Skalskyj-Reynolds and DJ Wright (Skipton) all of whom have consistently dismissed extortionate added 'fees/damages'. District Judges deal with private parking claims on a daily basis, whereas cases of this nature come before Circuit Judges infrequently. The Judgments of HHJ Parkes in Britannia v Semark-Jullien, and HHJ Simpkiss in One Parking Solution v Wilshaw were flawed. These supposedly persuasive judgments included a universal failure to consider the court's duty under s71 of the CRA 2015 and factual errors. In Wilshaw: a badly outdated reliance on 'ticket cases' which allowed poor signage to escape fair scrutiny and a wrong presumption that landowner authority 'is not required' (DVLA rules make it mandatory). In Percy, HHJ Saffman made an incorrect assumption about pre-action costs and even sought out the wrong Code of Practice of his own volition after the hearing, and used it to inform his judgment.

30. In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper. The Claimant is put to strict proof of POFA compliance if seeking 'keeper liability'.

31. The Defendant avers that there was no agreement to pay a parking charge or added 'damages' which were not even incurred, let alone quantified in bold, prominent text. This Claimant's lack of large, readable signs are nothing like the yellow & black warnings seen in Beavis, nor do they meet the signage requirements in the DLUHC Code which reflects the already statutory requirement for 'prominence' (Consumer Rights Act 2015 - the 'CRA').

CRA breaches

32. Section 71 CRA creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness whether a party raises it or not. Further, claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3): (link)

33. The CRA introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both terms and 'consumer notices'.  In a parking context, this includes a test of fairness and clarity of 'signs & lines' and all communications (written or otherwise). Signs must be prominent (lit in hours of darkness/dusk) and all terms must be unambiguous and contractual obligations clear.

34.  The Defendant avers that the CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith (NB: this does not necessarily mean there has to be a finding of bad faith).  

ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished

35.  Unlike in Beavis, the penalty rule remains engaged. The CRA covers disproportionate sums, which are not exempt from being assessed for fairness because a 'fee' is not the core price term and neither was it prominently proclaimed on the signs.  

THIS IS THE MOST CHARACTERS I CAN PUT ALSO NO LINKS - THE REST OF DEFENCE IS AS STANDARD

Any feedback?

I feel like the paragraphs may not be in the best order so if I need to change the order please let me know. 

Also does it matter than I have put ony one defence even though its for 5 PCN's?

I cant even remember all the times of these charges to be honest. but i know most given early morning.

Thanks for your invaluable input guys. 

Coupon-mad

One defence is fine...think about it, the POC lists 2 dates only and doesn't even say it's five PCNs!

I would remove para 12. Not needed, not all on point and it's all covered later in other points.

Remove this from 15.1 because you were the driver:

 "or driver of the vehicle"

And edit the quoting of the words about 'damages' in para 15.3 because that phrase isn't in your POC.

1505grandad

A heads-up  -  in there is no middle "e" in Judgment in this context  -  see the Judgment doc and the template exemplar wording including the post by UTC above.