Registered Users Only on PRIVATE LAND

Coupon-mad

 DLUHC's incoming statutory Code of Practice specifically says setting down or picking up a passenger is NOT 'parking'.

Not enough: I wanted you to go find it and quote it, not quote me.

You are also inexplicably missing the usual paragraph 2 in hharry100's defence.

UserD

Coupon-mad said:

 DLUHC's incoming statutory Code of Practice specifically says setting down or picking up a passenger is NOT 'parking'.

Not enough: I wanted you to go find it and quote it, not quote me.

You are also inexplicably missing the usual paragraph 2 in hharry100's defence.

@Coupon-mad - I have sorted out paragraph 2 from hharry100's defence and paragraph 4 stating what the 'DLUHC' has published.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

UK Parking Control Ltd

(Claimant) 

- and -  

Defendant named on claim (Will add my name before I send it)

 (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').

 

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. 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.

3. 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(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. 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 (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

(transcript of proceedings of the case mentioned above under this paragraph)

 

 

4. The Defendant did not park in the estate

The defendant went to pick his daughter up as his daughter was visiting a person that is living in the block of flats. The defendant did not park and also did not get out his vehicle and left as soon as his daughter was in the car.In the Jopson v Homeguard, case number B9GF0A9E, the judge stated that collecting or delivering (of goods or people) is not parking.

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') published in February 2022, a Private Parking Code of Practice as stated in point 2.24 below.

2.24 parking period

the length of time that a vehicle has been parked, i.e. left stationary otherwise than in the course of driving, after any relevant consideration period has expired (excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers to leave or enter the vehicle)

 

5.The defendant did not see terms of the contract displayed

The defendant did not see the terms of the contract at the entrance of the estate as the main sign refers to the terms being inside the estate and when the defendant was picking his daughter up was parked outside, not within, and didn't pass a t&cs sign.

6.Trespass

The sign says REGISTERED USERS ONLY, If the defendant was not registered then the defendant was trespassing and hence a third party cannot charge the defendant for trespassing, the landowner would have to lodge a civil legal case If in the alternative it is the claimants case that his claim is founded in trespass (which is in any event denied) then in a car park setting any damages in trespass can only be assessed based on a calculation of the proportion of income lost based on the time of the alleged occupation. Any sum sought could therefore only be minimal and de-minimis.

7. 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.

Coupon-mad

Looks fine except change 'didn't' to did not.

UserD

@Coupon-mad
Thanks you and everyone for your support so much .i will submit this as my defence online were i submitted the AOL and then email it as well

Debszzzz2

Under no circumstances must you file your defence using the MCOL. Absolutely not. Did you not read the Newbies/FAQ thread?

You only submit your defence as a PDF attachment to an email to ccbcaq@justice.gov.uk

UserD

@Debszzzz2
Off course not and thanks for the reminder.

UserD

Are you referring to the Submitting your Defence '' from KeithP ?

UserD

yes have read it.

KeithP

UserD said:

Are you referring to the Submitting your Defence '' from KeithP ?

Clearly there needs to be some improvement in the guidance offered in this area.

Please explain how you missed the critical points. We don't want more people making a similar mistake.

UserD

@KeithP - No the docs are fine ,just needed a reminder ,thats what i meant ''Off course not and thanks for the reminder.''  .Thank you the info was good.
i use Gmail and cant receive a read receipt as there no functionality for personal accounts and requested confirmation from them.Then i received a Auto Response email from CCBC ,is it good enough ?