Permit at work VCS DCB Legal court claim

Kitkat8

Thanks so much! I have sent the email to dcb as suggested by @LDast on 29th June. Still awaiting reply. Will keep you all updated

Kitkat8

They replied with the following:



What's my next move? Do I just send my defence now?

Le_Kirk

Kitkat8 said:

What's my next move? Do I just send my defence now?

Our regular, @KeithP wrote, you have until 4pm on Monday 29th July 2024 to file your Defence.  Is it complete, have we seen your paragraphs 2 & 3 (or 4 & 5 if using the @hharry100 defence) for critique?

LDast

So they haven't provided the information you requested. I would suggest the following is added to the defence under a Preliminary Matter: The claim should be struck out Sub-heading after para #1:

2. The defendant disputes the sums claimed by the claimant as they have failed to provide a clear breakdown of how these sums were calculated as required by the PAP, despite repeated requests for this information. On [date], the defendant requested further information from the claimant, specifically asking for a detailed breakdown of the sums claimed and the reference dates for the interest calculations.

3. In their response dated [date], the claimant failed to provide the requested breakdown. Instead, the claimant only provided the following information:

   - The amount claimed £176.44.

   - The court fee £35.

   - Solicitor costs £50.

   - "Debt recovery" fee £70

   

4. Despite these assertions, the Particulars of Claim (PoC) describe the additional £70 as "damages," which is inconsistent with the claimant's previous description.

5. The defendant submits that the claimant's failure to provide a clear and consistent breakdown of the sums claimed or reference dates for the interest calculated prejudices the defendant’s ability to properly defend against the claim. Without a clear understanding of how the sums were calculated, the defendant cannot accurately respond to or challenge the claim.

6. The defendant contends that this lack of transparency and the inconsistencies in the claimant’s statements constitute an abuse of process. The defendant requests that the court considers striking out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (c) on the grounds that the claimant’s statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and is an abuse of the court's process. 

7. Alternatively, the defendant respectfully requests that the court orders the claimant to provide a detailed breakdown and explanation of the calculation for the interest claimed, including the start date and end date for the interest period, the rate applied, the method of calculation and evidence of such. Also, detailed information regarding the £70 "damages" added to the principal sum mentioned in the PoC, including a breakdown of what these "damages" consist of, the basis on which they were calculated, and any supporting documentation. The defendant reserves the right to amend this Defence upon receipt of the requested information.

Coupon-mad

But of course that suggestion is ADDITIONAL to everything that the Template Defence tells you. Start with the Template Defence or the hharry100 linked alternative version, that I provide within it.

Kitkat8

Okay so now added to the template is:

As suggested by @LDast the text recommended has been added following Paragraph #1 as a sub heading:

Preliminary Matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The defendant disputes the sums claimed by the claimant as they have failed to provide a clear breakdown of how these sums were calculated as required by the PAP, despite repeated requests for this information. On [date has been inserted], the defendant requested further information from the claimant, specifically asking for a detailed breakdown of the sums claimed and the reference dates for the interest calculations.

3. In their response dated [date has been inserted], the claimant failed to provide the requested breakdown. Instead, the claimant only provided the following information:

The amount claimed £176.44.

The court fee £35.

Solicitor costs £50.

"Debt recovery" fee £70

4. Despite these assertions, the Particulars of Claim (PoC) describe the additional £70 as "damages," which is inconsistent with the claimant's previous description.

5. The defendant submits that the claimant's failure to provide a clear and consistent breakdown of the sums claimed or reference dates for the interest calculated prejudices the defendant’s ability to properly defend against the claim. Without a clear understanding of how the sums were calculated, the defendant cannot accurately respond to or challenge the claim.

6. The defendant contends that this lack of transparency and the inconsistencies in the claimant’s statements constitute an abuse of process. The defendant requests that the court considers striking out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (c) on the grounds that the claimant’s statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and is an abuse of the court's process. 

7. Alternatively, the defendant respectfully requests that the court orders the claimant to provide a detailed breakdown and explanation of the calculation for the interest claimed, including the start date and end date for the interest period, the rate applied, the method of calculation and evidence of such. Also, detailed information regarding the £70 "damages" added to the principal sum mentioned in the PoC, including a breakdown of what these "damages" consist of, the basis on which they were calculated, and any supporting documentation. The defendant reserves the right to amend this Defence upon receipt of the requested information.

The facts known to the Defendant:

8. (added to the end of original paragraph #2) However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper but the claimant cannot confirm who was the driver.

9. The Defendant’s vehicle was used to park in a place of work for one of the vehicles registered drivers. The Defendant’s vehicle has a permit belonging to the vehicle which allows the vehicle to park on site at St Paul’s House. This permit has already been paid for by the company that one of the registered drivers is currently employed by. This allows the vehicle to be onsite.

10. 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.

11. 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 employees.

12. 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 employees, as is on offer to the general public and trespassers. This interferes with the terms of leases and agreements of the company, 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 vehicle’s use of that land/property.

13. According to the International Parking Community which the Claimant is a member of they discuss permits in their terms and conditions. In particular, point 7.3.1 of their code of practice states that If a Motorist receives a notice affixed to the Windscreen and they think it has been incorrectly issued they should: 7.3.1 Obtain evidence – keep the pay and display ticket or the parking permit and compile photographic evidence which supports their case. During the appeal process photographic evidence of the permit was sent to the Claimant and so the case should have been dropped once proof of a permit being owned for the vehicle was provided.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. With regard to template statements, the Defendant observes after researching other parking claims, that the Particulars of Claim ('POC') set out a cut-and-paste incoherent statement of the case. Prior to this - and in breach of the pre-action protocol for 'Debt' Claims - no copy of the contract (sign) accompanied any Letter of Claim. The POC is sparse on facts about the allegation which makes it difficult to respond in depth at this time; however the claim is unfair, objectionable, generic and inflated. 

This has all been added to the template from the newbies thread. I have reviewed hharry100 defence but felt that @LDast has covered the main points form that defence in the text after the 1st Paragraph as my PoC DOES outline the breach. So in regards to the defence is this okay? Do I need to add anything? I struggled to find specific cases around permits for a workplace and could only find examples of parking permits for residents so tried to use as best as I could. There were mitigating circumstances in that the driver had put their permit up and it fell down as the stickyness from the tax disc holder became...well...not so sticky in the time they were at work. Should I mention this? Or is moot?

LDast

You are only answering the cause of action outlined in the PoC at this stage and any procedural errors made by the claimant or their solicitor. What I have provided only relates to procedural errors up to this point. If the PoC do not contain any proper cause of action, such as failing to identify which term/s were breached, then the CEL v Chan judgment should also be included in the preliminary matter.

You can expand on all the detail later when the time comes to produce your WS, assuming the claim wasn't already struck out for the reasons of the preliminary matter.

Kitkat8

LDast said:

You are only answering the cause of action outlined in the PoC at this stage and any procedural errors made by the claimant or their solicitor. What I have provided only relates to procedural errors up to this point. If the PoC do not contain any proper cause of action, such as failing to identify which term/s were breached, then the CEL v Chan judgment should also be included in the preliminary matter.

You can expand on all the detail later when the time comes to produce your WS, assuming the claim wasn't already struck out for the reasons of the preliminary matter.

They do contain cause of action I think though by saying the driver failed to display a permit? Because it fell off the windscreen it could be argued. However, the driver did display the permit it just fell off so I dint think that CEL v Chan applies

LDast

If the PoC state that the cause of action is because the driver did not display a permit, then CEL v Chan does not apply. The fact that the driver did display a permit but it fell down is something you can put in your WS later. For now, all you need to state in your own paragraph is that the defendant did display a permit. Let the claimant prove that they didn't.

Kitkat8

Lovely thank you. Yes they did state its because permit was not displayed. Just want to make sure I have everything covered before submitting my defence. I know I still have a couple weeks but would rather just get it submitted so i dont forget as long as no suggestions. Will leave it open for a coupe days any advice greatly appreciated. Thank you all so much for your help so far!