Short notice help with Residential Parking Claim

Le_Kirk

Have you found and read the template defence thread? Have you checked the links provided by @UncleThomasCobley?

frontlinekwarmz

@Le_Kirk, all : yes, here's my 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').

Preliminary matter

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 (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

[IMAGES OF JUDGEMENT TRANSCRIPT]

The facts known to the Defendant:

4.     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, specific breach 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 and driver.

5.     The defendant is a lifelong resident, and leaseholder since 2015, of a property on the estate where the alleged contraventions transpired. The defendant routinely parked or temporarily stopped their vehicle in the marked, first-come, first-serve vehicle spaces on the road adjacent to their home.

With the Particulars of Claim being so skeletal, however, the vehicle long having been sold, and the alleged, unspecified contraventions being so far in the past, indeed half of them falling barely within the six-year time limitation for pursuing such small claims, the defendant cannot recall the specific circumstances around receiving each PCN listed.  

And so from points 6. per rest of template defence. 

Is this okay/enough? 

I've read elsewhere on the forum that judges don't care to read that SARs having previously been submitted, etc... 

I've also separately drafted a little paragraph about having experienced inefficiencies/inconsistencies in the process of being issued a free residents' parking by MET - but it doesn't seem advisable/necessary to start addressing points not raised in the PoC.

Coupon-mad

Quite right. That defence is great! 

Also, please help our drive to get significant law-changing revenge for people like you, by responding to a simple online Inquiry to stop this happening to other people. 

This Committee want to hear from people like you.  Tell the MPs how all this affected you and show the claim form and your leaseholder evidence that even people who have a lifelong right to park (a likely easement at their own home) are suddenly being pursued for unfair and long-forgotten 'parking charges' SIX YEARS LATER by appalling bulk litigators.

DCBLegal's Directors' publicly stated aim - since they invented themselves, only in 2017 - is to be the biggest parking bulk litigator (clearly not to resolve disputes out of court...).  

Tell this inquiry that DCB issue a hundred thousand parking claims every year, and need to be stopped and the DLUHC (currently working on the final parking Code of Practice) would surely appreciate a helping hand from this Committee, to assist with their regulation to rein in this totally out of control 'extortion'.

Only 3 weeks left.

One quick submission; make a huge difference:

https://committees.parliament.uk/work/7972/work-of-the-county-court/

Please please show them your claim front page and proof of being a leaseholder entitled to 'peaceful enjoyment' of your home.

State that you are absolutely horrified that parking firm ex-clampers can - with a nod and a wink from the MCOL AI system - press a button to cause CCJs and use the auto-court (Claimant favouring) MCOL conveyor belt to churn out claims and pounce on consumers like this.

Tell them all that is wrong with a civilised country that lets rogue parking firms to ruin good people's peace of mind by abusing the court system - around half a million times per year going by MoJ stats processed in the DLUHC's draft IA this Summer.

All this achieves is massive clogging up the court's time that should be focussed on real debt, consumer disputes or family matters.

The Government is nearly there with this reform of parking firms.

Please tell this separate committee of MPs (who may not even have parking cases on their radar yet) that the delays in the court system (small claims) are almost wholly caused by parking firms and their aggressive 'claim-aim' bulk litigators who, as part of a robust consumer-focussed remedy, should either be:

- banned from cases under £1000

- made to engage in proper attempts to cancel meritless 6 year old PCN rubbish for consumers, or make it a rule that the parking firm has to resolve archive cases themselves

- made to adhere to, say, an 18 month maximum parking ticket Limitation period (NOT six years!)

- made to use a bespoke portal (for scrutiny)

- made to use an ADR instead of court (tell the Committee to liaise with the DLUHC who know the issues)

- made to use a suitable Pre-Action protocol because calling people like you a 'debtor' and being enabled by the MoJ to demand details of your finances in wholly inappropriate and intrusive 'financial reply forms' with the LBC in September is an embarrassment to civilised society AND looks like a scam.

Tell the Committee that debt forms are not even close to being suitable for disputed 'parking charges' and the misleading 'debtor' rubbish that arrived attached to the LBC is why you missed your chance to reply (to get the 2017 PCNs past the 6 year post, something you only learned about too late).

I hope you still have the LBC and financial reply forms?  Send this Committee all the paperwork.

Thanks! Your case is a bad one and I hope you are keen to use it to shape the Committee's views about reforming the Court process.

frontlinekwarmz

Hello all. I hope you're doing better than I am atm. This case has unfortunately progressed. Claimant has paid court fee, hearing is at the start of August, WS due tomorrow [completely forgot]. My draft is below for any last min input please.

I've followed the exemplars, using the CEL v Chan, Parrallel Parking v Anon, District Judge Sprague, (County Court at Luton) and District Judge McMurtrie and District Judge Ranson judgements as exhibits to argue a strike out as a preliminary matter re: Claimant's scant PoC. 

Facts and Sequence of events

1.      I have always lived at [address] and held the leasehold since [date].

2.      It is admitted that on the material dates, I was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

3.      Since the alleged contraventions would have transpired so long ago, I do not recall receiving written correspondence about these specific instances prior these proceedings, especially Notice to Keeper documents compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act ('POFA') 2012 wording prescribed in Schedule 4. 

Signage

4.      First and foremost, compared with photos I’ve obtained from the parking management company themselves, and with archival images available via Google Maps; the signs submitted by the Claimant as evidence do not appear to be from the same time-period as the alleged PCNs being pursued (or indeed from the same specific sites/locations). It seems that the Claimant has either deliberately sought to mislead the court or has erroneously furnished a host of generic signs from a later date, from throughout the entire housing estate. This would be in keeping with the haphazard and overwhelming approach to parking management and litigation that MET have repeatedly demonstrated. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the dates of the signage in their Witness Bundle.

5.      In any case, the signs used by the Claimant breach several British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice stipulations, per numerous previous County Court judgements.

6.      The latest BPA Code of Practice (version 8 – January 2020) Section 19, Paragraph 19.2 states that “(operators) must use signs to make it easy for (drivers) them to find out what your terms and conditions are.”

7.      The defendant submits that parking directions at the site have been ambiguous. Among the entrance signs to Hindrey Road (from 2017 and up until today) is one that reads 'Private Road. Residents Only'. A reasonable person may understandably interpret this to mean that as a legitimate resident, parking is permissible.

The Consumer Rights Act (2015)(Section 69) confirms:

Contract terms that may have different meanings:

“Contract terms can be ambiguous and capable of being interpreted in different ways, especially if they are not in writing or in an accessible format. In these cases, this section ensures that the interpretation that is most beneficial to the consumer, rather than the trader, is the interpretation that is used.”

8.      The entrance sign detailing the finer terms and conditions of parking is far less prominent, challenging to compute even from close, and in a state of desperate disrepair. This therefore goes against the BPA Code of Practice, as Section 19, Paragraph 19.3 states that “Signs must be conspicuous and legible…easy to see, read and understand.” (Exhibit)

9.      Whereas the '£100' parking charge is displayed in larger font and in bold in the Claimant's witness statement bundle, the actual signs erected at the address at the time were in small print, and illegible. This is in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (section 63-67 – contract terms which must be regarded as unfair) which states that non-prominent terms or consumer notices are not binding on consumers.

10.   The signs also offer neither support nor advice as to how to register for a valid parking permit or where to go if one is required. From my experience, information regarding permits and the process to obtain one was opaque and convoluted, and communication from the parking management company inconsistent and inefficient.

- - - - - - -

11.   In my memory, the litany of alleged parking charges presently being pursued were mostly issued in interim periods wherein I would have been awaiting issuance of a free residents’ parking permit from the parking management company. I would mainly request these over the phone, or in person, at the old housing association offices on my estate.

12.   I started using visitors’ parking permits where possible to prevent being ticketed. As reasonably imaginable, however, due to a range of circumstances, I could not always be present or arrange for someone to update the date/time reflected on it.

[END]

The WS continues, including the 'exaggerated claim' and CRA Breaches arguments, and the Beavis case. 

Anything else glaring to anyone? Any advice would be v much appreciated.

frontlinekwarmz

FYI

The sign from their witness bundle: 



The sign at the address at the time [from my SAR to the parking management company]:



Hopefully this sways a judge if a hearing actually happens!

Coupon-mad

That's good.

You need these transcripts too (search the forum for these cases please, you can find them as quickly as we could)::

Link v Parkinson
PACE v Noor
Jopson v Homeguard


I'd make more of this:

"I do recall the process of receiving/renewing a permit from MET over the phone being woefully inefficient, and being ticketed almost daily while waiting to be issued one."

And how about a short WS signed under a statement of truth from one of your parents, stating that they are leaseholders and have lived there since MONTH/YEAR and were never consulted about the introduction of a permit scheme and did not consent.

However the family did not want to incur costs so for a quiet life, felt they had no choice but to apply for a permit as a courtesy (to show it was a resident's vehicle) but they can verify how very difficult MET made it to obtain permits, with many residents being left waiting for one and racking up PCNs due to no fault of the drivers.  As such, MET were removed by the Housing Association which was believed to be due to complaints from residents unfairly penalised.

frontlinekwarmz

TYSM @Coupon-mad. You need an MBE. 

I'm not even in the country atm but will call up the 'rents and see what's poss. 

& quick q, from nerves - anyone aware of a case that's been lost but the defendant ordered to pay less than the exorbitant sum initially sought?

Coupon-mad

Always less. ALWAYS. As long as you attend the hearing.

There is NO WAY that failing to collect this debt cost them 13x the debt recovery fee!

Coupon-mad

I read everything and I know it does, which is why I didn't suggest your parents attach that.

My advice has not changed and your family OBVIOUSLY has the right to park because the HA has introduced that.

One of them needs to do a WS today which they sign under a statement of truth and email as a PDF to you.  Then you attach that with your own WS and exhibits.  Ideally that parent attends the hearing with you to avoid their WS being deemed hearsay.

frontlinekwarmz

Thank you, on it