Parking Eye CCJ issued without knowledge

BadIndian

Ok I found it... here is what I have now:

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. 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').

 

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 driver.

 

Preliminary Matter: The Claim should be Struck out

 

3. The defendant did enter the car park as a legitimate customer of xxx restaurant on the 5 May 2023 to purchase food. The defendant was not familiar with the car park nor the operational procedures as the defendant was only passing and stopped on recommendation from a friend.

4. The defendant’s details were supplied upon appeal following receipt of the PCN by the Registered Keeper.  

The defendant states that it was a brief stop and as the PCN states that the duration was 36 minutes.

5.  The defendant cites that after a later date upon knowing about the judgment a friend was asked to get a photo of the sign to the entry of the car park to which the defendant later learnt that it requires drivers to register via a terminal in reception however no clarity on the sign to indicate where reception was contrary to BPA Code of Practice 18.5.

The assumption is that Reception opening hours is from 8 am to 5.30 the alleged offence took place between 6.50 to 7.27 meaning that there is no access to Reception and NO arrow pointing to the exact location of the reception to guide patrons unfamiliar with the surroundings.

6.  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.

7.  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

8.  Extract of Civil Enforcement V Chan case 

9. 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.

10. 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.


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

11. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap).  It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred.

12. This claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due in debt or damages. This Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it.

13. This is a classic example were adding exaggerated fees funds bulk litigation of weak and/or archive parking cases. No checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit, or a cause of action (given away by the woefully inadequate POC).

14. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') published a statutory Parking Code of Practice in February 2022: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice.

The Ministerial Foreword is damning: "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." 

15. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code (temporarily withdrawn) it is now 'live' after a draft Impact Assessment (IA) was published on 30th July 2023. The Government's analysis is found here:  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

16. Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 state that the parking industry has shown the DLUHC that the true minor cost of pre-action stage totals a mere £8.42 per case (not per PCN).

17. This claim has been enhanced by a disproportionate sum, believed to enrich the litigating legal team. It appears to be double recovery, duplicating the intended 'legal fees' cap set by small claims track rules.

18. The draft IA shows that the intimidating letter-chains endured by Defendants cost 'eight times less' than the fixed +£70 per PCN. This causes immense consumer harm in the form of some half a million wrongly enhanced CCJs each year, that Judges are powerless to prevent.  MoJ statistics reveal several hundred thousand parking claims per annum, with c90% causing default CCJs totalling hundreds of millions of pounds. The false fee was enabled by the self-serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies who aligned in 2021 to allow +£70, each led by a Board comprising the parking and debt firms who stood to gain from it. 

19. It is denied that the added damages/fee sought was incurred or is recoverable. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis.  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 ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs' inflating a PCN to £135 exaggerated the cost of template letters and 'would appear to be penal'.

20. This Claimant has not incurred costs. A PCN model already includes what the Supreme Court called an 'automated letter-chain' and it generates a healthy profit. In Beavis, there were 4 pre-action letters/reminders and £85 was held to more than cover the minor costs of the operation (NB: debt collectors charge nothing in failed collection cases).

21. Whilst the new Code is not retrospective, all non-monetary clauses went unchallenged. It will replace the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes, which are not regulation and carry limited weight.  It is surely a clear steer for the Courts that the DLUHC said in 2023 that it is addressing 'market failure'.

22. At last, the DLUHC's analysis overrides plainly wrong findings by Circuit Judges steered by Counsel in weak appeal cases that the parking industry steamrollered through. In Vehicle Control Services v Percy, HHJ Saffman took a diametrically opposed position to that taken by DJ Hickinbottom, DJ Jackson (as Her Honour Judge Jackson then was), and other District Judges on the North Eastern Circuit, including DJ Skalskyj-Reynolds and DJ Wright (Skipton) all of whom have consistently dismissed extortionate added 'fees/damages'. District Judges deal with private parking claims on a daily basis, whereas cases of this nature come before Circuit Judges infrequently. The Judgments of HHJ Parkes in Britannia v Semark-Jullien, and HHJ Simpkiss in One Parking Solution v Wilshaw were flawed. These supposedly persuasive judgments included a universal failure to consider the court's duty under s71 of the CRA 2015 and factual errors. In Wilshaw: a badly outdated reliance on 'ticket cases' which allowed poor signage to escape fair scrutiny and a wrong presumption that landowner authority 'is not required' (DVLA rules make it mandatory). In Percy, HHJ Saffman made an incorrect assumption about pre-action costs and even sought out the wrong Code of Practice of his own volition after the hearing, and used it to inform his judgment.

23. In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper. The Claimant is put to strict proof of POFA compliance if seeking 'keeper liability'.

24. The Defendant avers that there was no agreement to pay a parking charge or added 'damages' which were not even incurred, let alone quantified in bold, prominent text. This Claimant's lack of large, readable signs are nothing like the yellow & black warnings seen in Beavis, nor do they meet the signage requirements in the DLUHC Code which reflects the already statutory requirement for 'prominence' (Consumer Rights Act 2015 - the 'CRA').

CRA breaches

25. Section 71 CRA creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness whether a party raises it or not. Further, claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3):

 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450440/Unfair_Terms_Main_Guidance.pdf

26. The CRA introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both terms and 'consumer notices'.  In a parking context, this includes a test of fairness and clarity of 'signs & lines' and all communications (written or otherwise). Signs must be prominent (lit in hours of darkness/dusk) and all terms must be unambiguous and contractual obligations clear.

27.  The Defendant avers that the CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith (NB: this does not necessarily mean there has to be a finding of bad faith).  

ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished

28.  Unlike in Beavis, the penalty rule remains engaged. The CRA covers disproportionate sums, which are not exempt from being assessed for fairness because a 'fee' is not the core price term and neither was it prominently proclaimed on the signs.  

29. The Supreme Court held that deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of a 'legitimate interest' in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from alleged breach.  The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden terms or cumbersome obligations ('concealed pitfalls or traps').  This Claimant has failed those tests, with small signs, hidden terms and minuscule small print that is incapable of binding a driver. Court of Appeal authorities about a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a parking charge include:

(i) Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (Lord Denning's ‘red hand rule’) and

(ii) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2,

both leading authorities that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and

(iii) Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000, where Ms Vine won because it was held that she had not seen the terms by which she would later be bound, due to "the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the parking space''. 

30.  Fairness and clarity of terms and notices are paramount in the DLUHC Code and these clauses are supported by the BPA & IPC. In the official publication 'Parking Review' the IPC's CEO observed: "Any regulation or instruction either has clarity or it doesn’t. If it’s clear to one person but not another, there is no clarity. The same is true for fairness. Something that is fair, by definition, has to be all-inclusive of all parties involved – it’s either fair or it isn’t." 

Lack of standing or landowner authority, and lack of ADR

31. DVLA data is only supplied if there is an agreement flowing from the landholder (ref: KADOE rules). It is not accepted that this Claimant (an agent of a principal) has authority to form contracts at this site in their name. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to litigate.

32. The Claimant failed to offer a genuinely independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The DLUHC Code shows that genuine disputes such as this should see PCNs cancelled, had a fair ADR existed. The rival Trade Bodies' time-limited and opaque 'appeals' services fail to properly consider facts or rules of law and reject most disputes: e.g. the IAS upheld appeals in a woeful 4% of decided cases (ref: Annual Report).  This consumer blame culture and reliance upon their own 'appeals service' (described by MPs as a kangaroo court and about to be replaced by the Government) should satisfy Judges that a fair appeal was never on offer.

Conclusion

33. There is now evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims that are causing consumer harm.  The July 2023 DLUHC IA analysis shows that the usual letter-chain costs eight times less than the sum claimed for it.  The claim is entirely without merit and the POC embarrassing.  The Defendant believes that it is in the public interest that poorly pleaded claims like this should be struck out.

34. In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, and further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5. 

35.  Attention is drawn to the (often-seen) distinct possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(d)(g))."   

 

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signature:

Date:

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

That's not the current Template Defence.  Easy to find pinned at the top of the forum.

BadIndian said:

Coupon-mad said:

That's not the current Template Defence.  Easy to find pinned at the top of the forum.

I will try and find it, it is not easy to find. irrespective of its not the current template what do you think of the contents? I need a steer if im in the right dierction 

When you do find the correct template, please only show us the parts you add or amend, we do not need t see the whole template!
ETA Oops, too late I see!

Le_Kirk

Since you have used the whole template it is difficult to know what you have added or amended, however, you have the "Preliminary matter........." separated from the relevant paragraph #6.  If you are citing CEL v Chn, I assume that the POC are sparse or vague and, if this is the case, you are, in my opinion, assuming too much.  Just tell the judge that the car was parked there for the purposes of using one of the local shops/restaurants.  That's all you need!  If you do decide to use more of what you have written, make sure that ALL paragraphs have a number.

Coupon-mad

Yep you can see from the hharry100 defence version that you have used, that the facts come after the 4 Chan transcript page images.

The facts can indeed be one paragraph saying why the Defendant was there and that no contractual signs were seen, much less any keypad, kiosk, payment machine or whatever the Claimant's vague allegations are relying upon.  The signage was inadequate and no contract was agreed or breached.

BadIndian

Le_Kirk said:

Since you have used the whole template it is difficult to know what you have added or amended, however, you have the "Preliminary matter........." separated from the relevant paragraph #6.  If you are citing CEL v Chn, I assume that the POC are sparse or vague and, if this is the case, you are, in my opinion, assuming too much.  Just tell the judge that the car was parked there for the purposes of using one of the local shops/restaurants.  That's all you need!  If you do decide to use more of what you have written, make sure that ALL paragraphs have a number.

Sorry I don't understand what you mean by preliminary matter separated from the relevant paragraph #'6 ? i just followed the template and added the bits that are specific to the event. Are you saying that para #6 should  put the cel v chan further up and move #6 further up? I understand what you are referring about assuming too much that's in respect to the reception opening and closing times.

@Coupon-mad I have amended point 2 to replace keeper with Driver

Amended paragraph 3, 4, 5, 24 by adding the CRA 2015 act  in bracket at the end 

BadIndian

@Coupon-mad
This is what the POC says as sent by the CNBC: 

Particulars of claim: CLAIM FOR MONIES OUTSTANDING FROM THE DEFENDANT IN RELATION TO A PARKING CHARGE (REFERENCE 3*****/*****3) ISSUED ON 07/06/2023. THE SIGNAGE CLEARLY DISPLAYED THROUGHOUT ROSEHILL BUSINESS CENTRE, DERBY, ROSEHILL BUSINESS CENTRE, NORMANTON ROAD, DERBY, DE23 6RH STATES THAT THIS IS PRIVATE LAND, MANAGED BY PARKINGEYE LTD, AND THAT IT IS SUBJECT TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS, INCLUDINGAUTHORISATION BEING REQUIRED FOR PARKING, BY WHICH THOSE WHO PARK AGREE TO BE BOUND (THE CONTRACT). PARKINGEYE'S ANPR SYSTEM CAPTURED VEHICLE W***** ENTERING AND LEAVING THE SITEON 05/05/2023, AND PARKING WITHOUT AUTHORISATION. THE DEFENDANT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL TO POPLA, THE INDEPENDENT APPEALS SERVICE FOR PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND, BUT THIS HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN

BadIndian

See below changes made. I haven't included all of the template just the bits I changed and added. I have added this bit to the end of para #2 the defendant’s details were supplied upon appeal following receipt of the PCN by the Registered Keeper.

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. 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').

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 driver and the defendant’s details were supplied upon appeal following receipt of the PCN by the Registered Keeper.

 

Preliminary Matter: The Claim should be Struck out.

3. 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.

 

4.  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

 

5.  Extract of Civil Enforcement V Chan case Goes here

 

6.  The defendant did enter the car park as a legitimate customer of xxx restaurant on the 5 May 2023 to purchase food. The defendant was not familiar with the car park nor the operational procedures as the defendant was only passing and stopped on recommendation from a friend.

The defendant states that it was a brief stop and as the PCN states that the duration was 36 minutes. No contractual signs were seen, much less any keypad, kiosk, payment machine or whatever the Claimant's vague allegations are relying upon.  The signage was inadequate and no contract was agreed or breached.

The defendant cites that after a later date upon knowing about the judgment a friend was asked to get a photo of the sign to the entry of the car park to which the defendant later learnt that it requires drivers to register via a terminal in reception however no clarity on the sign to indicate where reception was contrary to BPA Code of Practice 18.5.

NO arrow of direction pointing to the exact location of the reception to guide patrons unfamiliar with the surroundings and operating hours of said reception. The defendant states that itw as dark and visibility was poor thus making any small wording on any sign difficult to read. Having purchased food from xx resturant the defendant and his young teenage son took a last minute decision to stop and eat whilst sitting in the car as they were hungry thus the duration of 36 minutes was stated on the PCN otherwise the stay would have been less than 15 minutes.

Coupon-mad

Remove all this and give the paragraph sbove this a number:

The defendant cites that after a later date upon knowing about the judgment a friend was asked to get a photo of the sign to the entry of the car park to which the defendant later learnt that it requires drivers to register via a terminal in reception however no clarity on the sign to indicate where reception was contrary to BPA Code of Practice 18.5. 

NO arrow of direction pointing to the exact location of the reception to guide patrons unfamiliar with the surroundings and operating hours of said reception. The defendant states that itw as dark and visibility was poor thus making any small wording on any sign difficult to read. Having purchased food from xx resturant the defendant and his young teenage son took a last minute decision to stop and eat whilst sitting in the car as they were hungry thus the duration of 36 minutes was stated on the PCN otherwise the stay would have been less than 15 minutes. 

BadIndian

Coupon-mad said:

Remove all this and give the paragraph sbove this a number:

The defendant cites that after a later date upon knowing about the judgment a friend was asked to get a photo of the sign to the entry of the car park to which the defendant later learnt that it requires drivers to register via a terminal in reception however no clarity on the sign to indicate where reception was contrary to BPA Code of Practice 18.5. 

NO arrow of direction pointing to the exact location of the reception to guide patrons unfamiliar with the surroundings and operating hours of said reception. The defendant states that itw as dark and visibility was poor thus making any small wording on any sign difficult to read. Having purchased food from xx resturant the defendant and his young teenage son took a last minute decision to stop and eat whilst sitting in the car as they were hungry thus the duration of 36 minutes was stated on the PCN otherwise the stay would have been less than 15 minutes. 

I have made the change as you suggested and below is what I have: everything else is as the template defence laid out. Let me know if this is good to go as I want to submit this no later than today as I don't want to run out of time. Also do I need to physically sign it or electronic signature is ok?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

ParkingEye Ltd

(Claimant) 

- and -  

                      Tommy Musaka                        

 (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. 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').

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 driver and the defendant’s details were supplied upon appeal following receipt of the PCN by the Registered Keeper.

 

Preliminary Matter: The Claim should be Struck out.

3. 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.

 

4.  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

5.  Extract of Civil Enforcement V Chan case 

6.  The defendant did enter the car park as a legitimate customer of xxx restaurant on the 5 May 2023 to purchase food. The defendant was not familiar with the car park nor the operational procedures as the defendant was only passing and stopped on recommendation from a friend.

7.  The defendant states that it was a brief stop and as the PCN states that the duration was 36 minutes. No contractual signs were seen, much less any keypad, kiosk, payment machine or whatever the Claimant's vague allegations are relying upon.  The signage was inadequate and no contract was agreed or breached.

8. 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.

9. 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.

Coupon-mad

Add the end of 6

The Defendant has no clear idea what the Claimant means in their template POC but as he was a patron of the shop and parking was free for customers, it is denied that he was 'PARKED WITHOUT AUTHORISATION'. Thus, when the unsolicited notice arrived from a firm the Defendant had not contracted with to his knowledge, it bore all the hallmarks of a scam invoice.