Court Claim for 15 minute duration in car park

KeithP

donthurtmenomore said:

The moneyclaim website says that a DQ was sent to me on 15-Jan, but I haven’t received anything yet. Should I be concerned by the delay? 

No need to be concerned.

If you wish, when you are ready you can move on to item 8 on that checklist you were following earlier.

donthurtmenomore

Hi, I have now received a notice to proceed and a reply to the defence. Would it be helpful to share this information on this thread?

KeithP

donthurtmenomore said:

Hi, I have now received a notice to proceed and a reply to the defence. Would it be helpful to share this information on this thread?

Depends if it says anything useful or controversial. Does it?

If it matches that described in item 7 on that checklist you were following, then no we don't need to see it.

donthurtmenomore

They have submitted a response to each of the defence points made, not just a template response.

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for ParkingEye reply to defence and you should find it, if you sort search results by NEWEST.

donthurtmenomore

Have just reviewed some of the recent examples using the search suggested by Coupon-mad. The reply to defence I received was similar, they had standard responses to some of the template defence paragraphs, which they seem to have embellished over time.

They have also responded to my case specific points. I would like to post some scans tomorrow (will redact personal details).

donthurtmenomore

Have just come back from a 3 week business trip & holiday to find I have a court letter for a trial on 4th October. I need to submit my evidence by 4pm on 5th September, which gives me very little time.

I am currently arranging for the drafting up my witness statements (1 for the driver, 1 for myself - I specified 2 witnesses in the DQ) , which will basically reiterate what has been said in defence statement.

I also plan to submit the following:
Emails with the hotel, showing they tried to cancel the ticket through the parking eye portal on the basis of it being a genuine customer but failed as it was already in legal process.
Receipts for the food collection order.

Will I need to provide copies of the relevant court cases that I have referenced in my defence statement?

I haven't and will not have the opportunity to take photos of the car park + signage as it is a 6+ hour round trip to the site.

Is there anything else I need to consider as evidence?

My plan is to submit the evidence in pdf format to the local county court email address provided in the court letter, and also email to Parking Eye.

Apologies for not posting the redacted Parking Eye response to defence template, I will seek to do this once I have dealt with the court documents.

Coupon-mad

Will I need to provide copies of the relevant court cases that I have referenced in my defence statement?

Not if you mean ParkingEye v Beavis, or Vine v Waltham Forest, etc.  Those are authorities that a Judge can find as they are binding law.

I haven't and will not have the opportunity to take photos of the car park + signage as it is a 6+ hour round trip to the site.

But the GoogleStreetview car did...every year!

As this was the claimed sum:

"The Parking firm is ParkingEye, they have filed a claim for £120 + £35 court fee + £50 legal costs = £205."

Don't forget to argue that the signage would not have created a £120 contract because that's impossible for a parking charge notice (capped by trade bodies at £100).  There was no contract to pay £100 let alone an imaginary £120.

AND given that the D wasn't driving the only way the C can hold a keeper liable is by complying with Sch4 POFA, which only allows (under certain circumstances) keeper liability to a maximum of the sum of the parking charge as appeared on the sign when the driver was in site that day.

See Sch4 Explanatory Note 221:

"221.Paragraph 4 provides that the creditor has a right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the relevant vehicle if the conditions set out in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 are satisfied [...] but they may not use the scheme provided for here to secure double recovery of unpaid parking charges (paragraph 4(6)), nor will they have the right to pursue the keeper, as opposed to the driver, of the vehicle where they have sufficient details of the driver’s identity. [...] The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (paragraph 4(5))."

donthurtmenomore

I have a draft witness statement - see attachment. I intend for the driver to also produce a witness statement which will be limited to the sequence of events from her point of view, without the additional legal arguments from my statement.

Regarding the Exhibits, is it better to send them as standalone attachments rather than as part of the witness statement itself?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxxx

Between

Parking Eye Ltd

(Claimant)

- and -

xxxxxxxxxx

(Defendant)

_________________

Witness Statement of Defendant for Court Hearing on 04-October-2024

 

1.               I am [Name], [Address] and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.

2.     In my statement, I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated and I will say as follows:

3.     Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

4.     The Defendant draws to the attention of the court 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.

5.     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 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 judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. (See Exhibit xx-01)

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 Exhibit xx-02)

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 Exhibit xx-03)

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 confirmed they would not file an amended POC, demonstrating again the reliance of a number of firms on robo-letters and illegitimate practices. (See Exhibit xx-04)

9.     The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs.  The specifics of this case lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached. This lack of specificity places me, the Defendant, at a distinct disadvantage, as I find myself in the position of having to mount a defence without a clear understanding of the precise nature of the alleged violation.

Facts and Sequence of Events

10.           It is admitted that I was the registered keeper of vehicle of [reg] on 04‑July‑2023.

11.           I was not the driver of vehicle [reg] on 04-July-2023.

12.           The driver of the vehicle on the 04-July-2023, [driver name], made a food collection order from the [hotel name] through the third party provider “Too Good To Go” [exhibit xx-05]

13.           The driver drove to the hotel in the vehicle and exited the vehicle for the sole purpose of picking up the order. The order was not immediately available for collection, and the hotel reception asked her to wait. During her wait she enquired about how to make bookings for the hotel [note I have included this statement as it is referenced in the exhibit email to the hotel]

14.           The driver enquired about the parking and the hotel staff informed her not to worry about the parking arrangements as the order would be ready quickly.

15.           Once the order had been received, the driver exited the hotel and drove the vehicle away from the site.

16.           It is denied that the driver was parked, the sole purpose of the visit was to pick up an order from the hotel, which is not parking. Attention is drawn to the Jopson v Homeguard [2016] 9GF0A9E (“The Jopson Case”) paragraphs 20 and 21 makes distinction between a car which is parked, or simply stopped or left for a moment while unloading. [exhibit xx-006]

17.           On 11-October-2023 claim form xxxxx was issued and I received this shortly afterwards.

18.           The driver and attempted to contact the [hotel name] by telephone on 17‑October‑2023 through to 19-October-2023 to resolve the issue.

-continued

donthurtmenomore

.           During the initial telephone conversation on 17-October-2023, the hotel manager agreed to cancel the parking charge and the court claim. A follow email was sent to the hotel reception as agreed.

20.           The hotel responded on 19-October-2023 and stated that they tried to cancel the parking charge through a web portal, on the grounds of the driver being a genuine customer. [exhibit xx-07]

21.           The hotel reception made further contact with ParkingEye to intercede on my behalf, and provided feedback via email on 23-October-2023 that ParkingEye would only cancel the charge if a payment of £70 was made to settle the claim within 14 days. [exhibit xx-08]

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

22.           The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap).  I have seen no evidence that the added damages/fees are genuine.

23.           This claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due in debt or damages. 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.

24.           As I was not the driver of the vehicle, the only way the claimant can hold me as the keeper liable is by complying with Sch4 POFA, which only allows (under certain circumstances) keeper liability to a maximum of the sum of the parking charge as appeared on the sign when the driver was in site that day (£100). Attention is drawn to Excel v Smith (Exhibit xx-09) and VCS v Edward (Exhibit xx-10)

25. I say that fees were not paid out or incurred by this Claimant, who is to put strict proof of:

26. (i) the alleged breach, and

27. (ii)  a breakdown of how they arrived at the enhanced quantum claimed, including how interest has been calculated, which appears to have been applied improperly on the entire inflated sum, as if that figure was immediately overdue on the day of an alleged parking event.

28. 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.

(iii).  Interest appears to be miscalculated on the whole enhanced sum from day one as if the entire sum was 'overdue' on the day of parking;

29. This Claimant routinely pursues a disproportionate additional fixed sum(inexplicably added per PCN) despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban or substantially reduce the disproportionate 'Debt Fees'. This case is a classic example where the unjust enrichment of exaggerated fees encourages the 'numbers game' of inappropriate and out of control bulk litigation of weak/archive parking cases. No pre-action checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit, position of signs/the vehicle, or a proper cause of action.

30. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (the DLUHC) first published its statutory Parking Code of Practice on 7thFebruary 2022, here:

31. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice

"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."

32. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code's implementation (marking it as temporarily 'withdrawn' as shown in the link above) a draft Impact Assessment (IA) to finalise the DLUHC Code was recently published on 30th July 2023, which has exposed some industry-gleaned facts about supposed 'Debt Fees'. This is revealed in the Government's analysis, found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

33. Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 reveal that the parking industry has informed the DLUHC that the true minor cost of what the parking industry likes to call debt recovery or 'enforcement' (pre-action) stage totals a mere £8.42 per recovery case.

34. With that sum in mind, it is clear that the extant claim has been enhanced by an excessive amount, disingenuously added as an extra 'fee'. This is believed to be routinely retained by the litigating legal team and has been claimed in addition to the intended 'legal representatives fees' cap set within the small claims track rules. This conduct has been examined and found - including in a notably detailed judgment by Her Honour Judge Jackson, now a specialist Civil High Court Judge on the Leeds/Bradford circuit - to constitute 'double recovery' and the Defendant takes that position.

35. The new draft IA now demonstrates that the unnecessarily intimidating stage of pre-action letter-chains actually costs 'eight times less' (says the DLUHC analysis) than the price-fixed £70 per PCN routinely added. This has caused consumer harm in the form of hundreds of thousands of inflated CCJs each year that District Judges have been powerless to prevent. This abusively enhanced 'industry standard' Debt Fee was enabled only by virtue of the self- serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies, influenced by a Board of parking operators and debt firms who stood to gain from it.

36. In support of my contention that the sum sought is unconscionably exaggerated and thus unrecoverable, attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'). 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 later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating a parking charge to £135 was not a true reflection of the cost of a template letter and 'would appear to be penal.

-continued