Need Advice on Collective Lawsuit from Civil National Business Centre for Parking Fines

JurisJunkie

Hey everyone,

First off, I just want to say a massive thanks for all the posts on this forum that have been super helpful to me.

So, here's the deal: I've received this collective lawsuit from the Civil National Business Centre for 10 x PCN. It all kicked off from BW Legal. Apparently, I got these fines for parking in my designated spot without displaying a permit ticket. Now, here's the thing - the parking is underground, secured with a gate, and only accessible to residents using a fob key.

I've met two people, one of whom had the exact same situation as mine and managed to win the case. Both of these folks live in the same neighborhood, and there are more people who've been affected by this.

Using some of the templates and tips shared here, I've put together my initial defense. Can anyone advise me on whether my defense holds up or what I might need to tweak or add? I'd really appreciate any help or guidance on this. Thanks a bunch, and best regards!

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

Full name of parking firm Ltd, not the solicitor!

(Claimant) 

- and -  

Defendant named on claim (can’t be changed to driver now)                        

 (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.

 

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 and driver.

3. The underground car parking area contains allocated parking spaces demised to some residents. Entry to the underground parking is by means of a key fob, of a type only issued to residents. Any vehicles parked therein are, therefore, de facto authorised to be there.

4. Under the terms of the Defendant's lease, a number of references are made to conditions of parking motor vehicles.

1.37 Motor Vehicles - Only to park motor vehicles in the allocated spaces (if any) and not to park more than the permitted number of motor vehicles. Any vehicles parked in parking space for the property must be taxed, insured and of road worthy condition.

1.37.1 Not to repair cars, motorcycles, vans or other commercial vehicles at the premises apart from general maintenance, from time to time, to a vehicle of which the Tenant is the registered keeper.

 

5.1. There are no terms within the lease requiring lessees to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of same.

6. The Defendant, at all material times, parked in accordance with the terms granted by the lease. The erection of the Claimant's signage, and the purported contractual terms conveyed therein, are incapable of binding the Defendant in any way, and their existence does not constitute a legally valid variation of the terms of the lease. Accordingly, the Defendant denies having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct.

7. The Claimant, or Managing Agent, in order to establish a right to impose unilateral terms which vary the terms of the lease, must have such variation approved by at least 75% of the leaseholders, pursuant to s37 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987, and the Defendant is unaware of any such vote having been passed by the residents.

8. Further and in the alternative, the signs refer to 'Authorised Vehicles Only/Terms of parking without permission', and suggest that by parking without permission, motorists are contractually agreeing to a parking charge of £100. This is clearly a nonsense, since if there is no permission, there is no offer, and therefore no contract.

8.1. The Defendant's vehicle clearly was 'authorised' as per the lease and the Defendant relies on primacy of contract and avers that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing is in fact a matter of tortious interference, being a private nuisance to residents.

8.2. In this case the Claimant has taken over the location and runs a business as if the site were a public car park, offering terms with £100 penalty on the same basis to residents, as is on offer to the general public and trespassers. However, residents are granted a right to park/rights of way and to peaceful enjoyment, and parking terms under a new and onerous 'permit/licence' cannot be re-offered as a contract by a third party. This interferes with the terms of leases and tenancy agreements, none of which is this parking firm a party to, and neither have they bothered to check for any rights or easements that their regime will interfere with (the Claimant is put to strict proof). This causes a substantial and unreasonable interference with the Defendant's land/property, or his/her use or enjoyment of that land/property.

9. The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant's position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.

 

10. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £70 to the original £100 parking charge, for which no explanation or justification has been provided. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

10.1. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £175.94. This appears to be an added cost with no apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

10.2. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

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 XXXXXX vehicle to be parked by the current occupier 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.

12. Accordingly it is denied that:

12.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant

12.2. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

13. The claim violates Rule 3.4(2)(a) of PRACTICE DIRECTION 3A as having not set out a concise statement of the nature of the claim or disclosed reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim (Part 16.4(1)(a) and PRACTICE DIRECTION 16 paragraphs 3.1-3.8). In C3GF84Y (Mason, Plymouth County Court), the judge struck out the claim brought by KBT Cornwall Ltd as Gladstones Solicitors had not submitted proper Particulars of Claim, and similar reasons were cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out without a hearing due to their ‘robo-claim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ‘’providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law’’. The Practice Direction also sets out the following example which is analogous to this claim: ‘those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’.’

14. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims and the solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to becurrently the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

15. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. It is denied that the Claimant has an entitlement to the sums sought.

16. The Defendant invites the court to dismiss this claim out as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under Practice Direction 16, set out by the Ministry of Justice and also Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under 16.4 and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14. Given that the claim is based on an alleged contractual parking charge of £100 - already significantly inflated and mostly representing profit, as was found in Beavis - but the amount claimed on the claim form is inexplicably £170, the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

KeithP

JurisJunkie said:

I've received this collective lawsuit from the Civil National Business Centre for 10 x PCN.

Hello and welcome.

'Collective lawsuit' is not a term we see here very often, in fact, I can't remember seeing it before.
What is a collective lawsuit?
If it's just a Court Claim for several PCNs, then read on. Otherwise wait for someone more knowledgeable to pass by.

Do you have a County Court Claim Form?

If so, what is the Issue Date on it?

If you have filed an Acknowledgment of Service, upon what date did you do that?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that question.

JurisJunkie

Apologies for the confusion. I meant to refer to the Court Claim for several PCNs, which is now called the Civil National Business Centre. The document is dated December 4, 2023, and the acknowledgment of service was submitted on December 15, 2023.
Thanks

Coupon-mad

You don't need ANY of para 10 onwards.  Better to just use para 4 onwards from the Template Defence there, renumbered as 10 onwards.

JurisJunkie

Got it, mate! Thanks a bunch!

Coupon-mad

I'm female but no worries. 

KeithP

JurisJunkie said:

The document is dated December 4, 2023, and the acknowledgment of service was submitted on December 15, 2023.

With a Claim Issue Date of 4th December, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 8th January 2024 to file your Defence.

That's a little over a week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving 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'.