6 tickets issued in 8 days - is there a Data Protection issue?

jordylass

How is this for my defence, the rest of coupon mads document is as written

Facts of the Case:

1. The Defendant was issued five PCNs for parking at Portia Way, London E3 4JH, on (my dates) of November 2023. The Defendant was both the registered keeper and the driver on these dates. The vehicle was parked for legitimate reasons, and the signage at the location was insufficient, unclear, and failed to meet the requirements necessary to form a binding contract. The Defendant disputes the validity of these charges due to inadequate notice of terms.

2. The Defendant acknowledges prior receipt of the PCNs but contests the excessive charges. The Claimant has added a £70 'Debt Recovery Fee' per PCN, totalling an additional £350 on top of the base £500 for the PCNs, resulting in a claim of £850. This fee is excessive, being over 8 times the actual minor cost of £8.42 per case, as outlined in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) Impact Assessment. The Defendant submits that these fees are not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and are unenforceable.

Lack of Financial Loss and Legitimate Interest

1. The Claimant has not demonstrated any financial loss and, to justify an inflated parking charge, must show that there was:

   (i) A strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss; and
   (ii) 'Adequate notice' of the penalty charge, which requires clear, prominent signage.

2. The Defendant denies that either of these conditions has been met. The charges imposed are punitive and cannot be justified by the ruling in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

Case Law Supporting Inadequate Notice of Terms

1. The signage at Portia Way, London E3 4JH, did not meet the legal standard for clarity and prominence. The Claimant’s failure to provide adequate notice of the terms is contrary to established case law, including:

   • (i) Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461, which introduced the 'red hand rule,' requiring that any onerous or unusual terms be highlighted conspicuously;
   • (ii) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ 2, which held that a term cannot be incorporated into a contract if it was not clearly brought to the driver’s attention before the contract was formed; and
   • (iii) Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ, where it was ruled that a driver cannot be bound by terms they did not have a fair opportunity to see due to inadequate or obscured signage.

2. The Defendant asserts that the signage at the location was insufficient to meet these legal requirements, and therefore, no valid contract was formed. This case is further distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015], where the Supreme Court found the signage to be clear, prominent, and in compliance with legal standards.

Gr1pr

Does not look like its based on the template defence to me 

Genuine pre estimate of loss was generally binned 9 years ago 

Look at the template defence thread by coupon mad at the top of the forum, posts 1 & 2

jordylass

these were the paragrpahs it said to change for your own circs

I've changed 
The Defendant submits that these fees are not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and are unenforceable.

to The Defendant submits that these fees are not justified and amount to a punitive charge.

Gr1pr

Paragraphs 2 & 3 are copied and pasted below, you are supposed to adapt them according to your own case ( not replace them. )

Coupon mad explained what you should be doing 12 days ago 

For example, So paragraph 2 just needs a few words added at the end, but you have not shown any of it , so if its absent then you are not following the advice given to you

Quote 

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

^EDIT THIS PARAGRAPH If you weredriving, add 'and driver' after the word 'keeper'.

OR if the Defendant doesn't know who was driving, say that.

OR deny being the driver if you weren't: ONLY IF TRUE!

3. [EXPLAIN IN YOUR OWN WORDS...NB: defences are written in the THIRD person as 'the Defendant', not 'I did this' nor 'my/me']. 

Say why the car was there - if you know - but don't answer to details that are not stated in the PARTICULARS OF CLAIM. If you didn't get any letters or it was years ago & you can't recall if you were driving, say that.  ONLY IF TRUE.

Most claims do not even state the alleged breach. If yours doesn't state what the breach was, add the paragraphs and judgments seen in the defence by @hharry100  here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80343627/#Comment_80343627

and change the paragraph numbering.

If this was a residential site where the driver lives/was a permitted visitor, statethose parking rights.

Older residential defence examples are in the NEWBIES thread.  CRIB SOME PARAGRAPHS BUT USE THIS TEMPLATE AS YOUR BASE.

We recommend you continue with this wording  (yes, all of it. Paragraphs suitably re-numbered to allow for the above).

Unquote 

1505grandad

Presumably you are reading  following in the Newbies:-

"Here are some cases which should help you with ideas as to what to put in as 'case specific facts' at #2 and #3 of the above linked template defence:"

As you can see it clearly states the defences are for ideas only -  therefore not to be copied word for word  -  so that you can then complete paras 2 & 3 in the Template Defence:-

"THEN READ THIS TEMPLATE DEFENCE AND EDIT IT TO SUIT:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1

EDIT  -  I see GR1pr has explained better.

Coupon-mad

Add here:

"The Defendant disputes the validity of these charges for several reasons including the inadequate notice of terms.

You don't need to put any of this which is already in the Template Defence:

The Defendant acknowledges prior receipt of the PCNs but contests the excessive charges. The Claimant has added a £70 'Debt Recovery Fee' per PCN, totalling an additional £350 on top of the base £500 for the PCNs, resulting in a claim of £850. This fee is excessive, being over 8 times the actual minor cost of £8.42 per case, as outlined in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) Impact Assessment. The Defendant submits that these fees are not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and are unenforceable.

jordylass

Let me know if i need to change

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 Particulars of Claim (POC) appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD 3, and 16PD 7, as they 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 in full. However, the vehicle is recognised, and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle at the relevant times.

3. The Defendant parked at Portia Way, London E3 4JH, on the dates in question: 13th, 14th, 18th, 19th, and 20th of November 2023. The vehicle was parked for legitimate reasons and the Defendant disputes the validity of these charges for several reasons, including the inadequate notice of terms. The Defendant did not see any prominent signage indicating the requirement for a permit, and the signage at the site was unclear and insufficient to form a binding contract.

Coupon-mad

Looks fine.

jordylass

As I have 5 tickets all under 1 claim and DCBlegal have offered a settlement for half, should I accept this? As I see they are unlikely to discontinue for multiples.

Coupon-mad

jordylass said:

As I have 5 tickets all under 1 claim and DCBlegal have offered a settlement for half, should I accept this? As I see they are unlikely to discontinue for multiples.

No. Not unless you have a very weak defence which I didn't think you did?