County Court Claim

newuser8

I've got to submit by 4pm on Monday so not much time left. 

Coupon-mad

I'm sure by now you've searched the DLUHC CoP for the word 'double' or 'double dip'.

newuser8

Thanks @Coupon-mad, I searched the key word and found it. Does the below look okay?

Also with regard to counter claiming, which section do I add the counter claim? Do I just mention the amount I am counter claiming for and my reasons? I have not seen any sample defence where a defendant has made a counter claim so unsure about this section. I'm still in 2 minds as I really want PE to discontinue after seeing my defence. I don't have the energy to go to court right now!

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 defendant drove their car into Barnet Hospital car park at around 18:14 hrs to drop off a passenger for a hospital appointment. The defendant subsequently exited the hospital car park within a few minutes of entering and never parked their car on first visit. The defendant returned to Barnet Hospital around 19:20 hrs for the second time and parked their car for a short period of time to assist their passenger. On exiting the car park, the defendant went to the payment terminal to validate their parking and make payment. On entering their car registration details into the payment terminal to make payment, a displayed charge of £2 was shown on the screen, however on attempting to make payment, the payment terminal malfunctioned, and it took several attempts before the defendant could pay for their parking. The defendant existed the car park at approx. 19:43 hrs.

 

4. The Defendant was parked for aprox 25mins and paid for a full hour of parking. The Defendant did not overstay and should not have been issued with a Parking charge notice.

5. The Defendant believes that the parking overstay claim is a result of "double dipping," where only the first and last movement of their vehicle were captured by the ANPR camera, omitting intermediate movements.

 

6. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) addresses this issue in its Private Parking Code of Practice, section 7.3. “d)  images generated by ANPR or CCTV have been subject to a manual quality control check, including the accuracy of the time-stamp and the risk of keying errors. The manual quality control check for remote ANPR and CCTV systems is particularly important for detecting issues such as “double dipping”, where image camera systems might have failed to accurately record each instance when a vehicle enters and leaves controlled land, and for checking images that might have been taken other than by a trained parking attendant (see Clause 15).

 

7. The Claimant is in breach of section 21.1 to 21.4 of the BPA CoP as well as the DPA/GDPR requirement before issuing a fine and seeking keepers personal data from DVLA.

 

Coupon-mad

I'd crop the end of the quote to remove this unnecessary bit:

"and for checking images that might have been taken other than by a trained parking attendant (see Clause 15)."

You could Counterclaim like this poster is doing. I gave them some pointers and they've added it to the end of their defence:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80566199/#Comment_80566199

You are right that it does force it to a hearing unless ParkingEye make you an offer later on, which you COULD push for.  If you do, tick YES to Mediation - a settlement phone call - and ask for 3 figure settlement - them paying you off (their flawed claim has no merit but yours would...).

If you DON'T do a counterclaim tick NO to Mediation on the later DQ form.

Once you have decided, and got this emailed, send ParkingEye's DPO email a SAR for all images of the car as it traversed the site, just like this person did, also Barnet Hospital:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/03/parkingeye-lose-in-court-accuse-drivers.html?m=1

"Mr Mustard recreated Mrs B's journey and then made a subject access request to ParkingEye. The results show he was detected 42 times by cameras as he traversed the site."

"When Mrs B made a similar request ParkingEye stonewalled her and refused to supply the data. The Prankster believes the data would have backed up her claim to have been driving around the site and that ParkingEye  should therefore have vacated the claim."

Coupon-mad

There are cameras galore at every turn (not just the entrance) at Barnet Hospital and images of your vehicle will have been captured more than a dozen times ... hence why this is a data breach.

1505grandad

Para 3  -  typo  -  "The defendant existed the car park at approx. 19:43 hrs.

"7. The Claimant is in breach of section 21.1 to 21.4 of the BPA CoP as well as the DPA/GDPR requirement before issuing a fine and seeking keepers personal data from DVLA."

Just checking  -  was the parking event after January 2020?.  If so the BPA CoP version 8 applies and the ANPR para is #22
https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_January_2020_v8(2).pdf

newuser8

@1505grandad, yes it was issued after Jan 2020. Thanks for the link. I will update my Defence statement. I have updated the typo in para 3. Thanks for spotting it.

Also would it be s.22.1 to 22.5 to reference?

Le_Kirk

newuser8 said:

Also would it be s.22.1 to 22.5 to reference?

Looks like it is.

newuser8

@Coupon-mad, @Le_Kirk, @KeithP @fisherjim

Here is my final version with the counter claim included. I could really do with some feedback on the order of statements, especially whether I've put the counterclaim section in the correct order? Was thinking of moving it below the heading 'The facts known to the Defendant' just after para 8. What are your thoughts please?

I have removed the sections where I have copied the applicable standard code of practice and replaced it with the para numbers for ease of review.

Thanks all

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxx

Between

Pxxxxxx Exx

(Claimant) 

- and -  

xxxxx                     

 (Defendant)

_________________

 

DEFENCE

 

1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx(standard copy).

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge xxxxxxxx standard copy).

3. The defendant drove their car into Barnet Hospital car park at around 18:14 hrs to drop off a passenger for a hospital appointment. The defendant subsequently exited the hospital car park within a few minutes of entering and never parked their car on first visit. The defendant returned to Barnet Hospital around 19:20 hrs for the second time and parked their car for a short period of time to assist their passenger. On exiting the car park, the defendant went to the payment terminal to validate their parking and to make payment. On entering their car registration details into the payment terminal to make payment, a displayed charge of £2 was shown on the screen, however on attempting to make payment, the payment terminal malfunctioned, and it took several attempts before the defendant could pay for their parking. The defendant exited the car park at approx. 19:43 hrs.

 

4. The Defendant was parked for approx 25mins and paid for a full one hour of parking. The Defendant did not overstay and should not have been issued with a Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

5. The Defendant believes that the parking overstay claim is a result of "double dipping," where only the first and last movement of their vehicle were captured by the ANPR camera, omitting intermediate movements.

6. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) addresses this issue in its Private Parking Code of Practice, section 7.3. “d)  images generated by ANPR or CCTV have been subject to a manual quality control check, including the accuracy of the time-stamp and the risk of keying errors. The manual quality control check for remote ANPR and CCTV systems is particularly important for detecting issues such as “double dipping”, where image camera systems might have failed to accurately record each instance when a vehicle enters and leaves controlled land.

 

7. The Claimant is in breach of section 22.1 to 21.5 of the BPA CoP as well as the DPA/GDPR requirement before seeking keepers personal data from DVLA and issuing a PCN.

8. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen xxxxxxxxxxxxx (standard copy).

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

 

Para 9 - 22

CRA breaches

Para 23-25

ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished

Para 26 - 28

Lack of standing or landowner authority, and lack of ADR

Para 29-30

Counter Claim

31. The Claimant alleges that the defendant underpaid for parking which should have covered a total stay of 1hrs and 28 minutes. The Defendant was parked for 25 mins and paid for a total stay of 1hrs which more than covered the time the Defendant was parked in Barnet Hospital car park.

32. The parking overstay has been a result of double dipping which the Claimant is in breach of section 22.1 to 21.5 of the BPA CoP as well as the DPA/GDPR requirement before seeking keepers personal data from DVLA and issuing a PCN.

33. This counterclaim is for damages for distress caused by the Claimant's unlawful request for my personal data and issuing the Defendant with a PCN. The Defendant will rely upon the authorities of (i) Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46 and (ii) Harrison v Link Financial Ltd [2011] EWHC B3 (Mercantile) and other similar authorities as well as primary statute law.  Further, the authority in Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015] EWCA 311 confirms that pecuniary loss is not necessary for compensation to be payable, and that pure distress is enough. 

 

34. Personal data must be processed fairly and lawfully. The Claimants stand in breach of Article 5 (1) of the GDPR (the requirement for lawfulness, fairness and transparency).  Predatory pursuing is entirely at odds with those doctrines and despite this, the Claimant's aggressive pursuit and abuse of the Defendant's data has continued. Accordingly, the processing of my DVLA data was not “necessary for the performance of, or commencing, a contract” nor was it necessary or justified under any other data processing excuse. Distress is now included under Article 82 of the GDPR and the 2018 DPA. The Claimants had, and still have, no prospect of furthering their purpose and no legitimate cause to store and/or then continue processing the Defendant's data. Following Principles 1,2 and 5 of the Data Protection Principles they were not permitted to process or keep it.  

 35. The Claimant noted, photographed, and stored the Vehicle Registration Mark and then requested and received the Defendant’s personal data due to obtaining the registered keeper data relating to that vehicle, from the DVLA. The purpose was to seek payment of the parking charge which is the subject of the Claimants’ claim. The VRM itself and the Defendant’s details are 'personal data' within the meaning of the DPA 2018 and the associated General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).  

 

 36. Accordingly, at all material times the Claimants were data controllers, and the Defendant a data subject, within the meaning of the Acts. The Claimants were thereby under a statutory duty to process the Defendant’s data only in strict accordance with the DPA 2018 and the GDPR Articles 5 (1)(a) and (b) and 6 (1)(f)).  

 

37. Article 5 of the GDPR sets out seven key principles which lie at the heart of the general data protection regime. These are broadly the same as the DPA Principles. Article 5(1) requires that personal data shall be: 

(a) processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to individuals (‘lawfulness, fairness and transparency’);  

(b) collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes; (‘purpose limitation’); (c) adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed (‘data minimisation’);  

(d) accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date; every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that personal data that are inaccurate, having regard to the purposes for which they are processed, are erased or rectified without delay (‘accuracy’);  

(e) kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the personal data are processed (‘storage limitation’);  

(f) processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the personal data, including protection against unauthorised or unlawful processing and against accidental loss, destruction or damage, using appropriate measures (‘integrity and confidentiality’). 

38. Article 5(2) adds that: “The controller shall be responsible for, and be able to demonstrate compliance with, paragraph 1 (‘accountability').   Article 6(1)f of the GDPR states an exemption if processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data.  

 

39. The Defendants Counter Claim: - 

a). Compensation in the sum of: £300 

b). Court fees: £35.00 filing fee  

 

Conclusion

40. 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.

41. 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. 

33.  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)(dg))."   

 

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.

Coupon-mad

ParkingEye is one word and the word 'Ltd'.

Have a look at the final Defence & Counterclaim posted today by that poster whose case I linked for you, and my comments. He hasn't used the standard para 1 as were told him to make it more bespoke.

See that I also pointed out the statement of truth must confirm that the Part 20 CC is true.

His case includes photos but ignore that (don't add photos, that comes later for you).  His case is already at the local court  post CCJ set aside - and he is having to amalgamate the defence and witness statement and counterclaim & photos.

Apart from that though, his order of paragraphs and Part 20 Counterclaim (and the same arguments supporting the CC) can almost be copied, except of course proof-reading it to edit & change case-specific phrases about the fact he parked in an enclosed site outside of the area enforced by the PPC.