Car park - claim form advice

lam2222

Hi

I'd like your advice whether I'm doing the correct thing - and if I'm following the correct course of action.

Nearly a year ago I parked at a Mad house - child play area for a birthday party. They have free parking in a car park but some sections of the car park are UKPC private parking bays (I think, the layout is quite confusing). I must have parked in an incorrect section.

Anyways periodically over the past few months I've had various demanding letters, which I ignored and I'm at the point now of receiving a claims form.

I've followed the advise AOS guide via the online form - I understand from that point I shouldn't use the online form for anything else. That was about a week ago.

I've about to start adapting the 2nd post from this.

Template defence to adapt for all parking cases with added 'admin/DRA' costs - edited 31st July 2023 — MoneySavingExpert Forum

with the intention of emailing it to the CCBCAQ mail address. Sorry this may sound like an obvious question but am I going on about this the correct way? Does it sound like I have a leg to stand on? The POS states things like I agreed to pay within 28 days but I did no such thing.

Any advise would be appreciated!

POS is below.

Fruitcake

You are doing okay so far, but there is still time for Plan A, a complaint to the landowner and your MP.

What is the issue date of the claim form?
Upon what date did you complete the AoS?

The answers to these questions will help the regulars confirm the defence filing deadline, which should nominally be 33 days from the issue date.

Forget this, it is a non-point and discussed ad - nauseum on the forum.

"The POS states things like I agreed to pay within 28 days but I did no such thing."

The signs will have stated something like, "By remaining on site means the driver agrees to the parking terms."

The Particulars of Claim are vague and do not state a specific cause of action, so the CEL v Chan case and the transcript from the template thread should be included.

Post your draft defence here, but only the parts you have amended.

lam2222

Fruitcake said:

You are doing okay so far, but there is still time for Plan A, a complaint to the landowner and your MP.

What is the issue date of the claim form?
Upon what dare did you complete the AoS?

The answers to these questions will help the regulars confirm the defence filing deadline, which should nominally be 33 days from the issue date.

Thanks for the reply.
Issue date on the claims form is the 5th Feb. I submitted the AOS on the 9th Feb.

Will post the draft defence here once ready. I'll try sending a complaint to 'Madhouse' - the establishment but I was under the impression that they only operated a portion of the car park, and I guess I just parked in the wrong section, but I'll give it a go anyway.

Thanks

Fruitcake

If they do not own the other part of the car park, you could ask them if they know who does.

Note that UKPC signs are always inadequate with parking terms tiny font, including the charge for breaching said Ts and Cs. Consequently you should get photos of the site and signage in readiness for the witness statement that comes later in the process. 

Note also that UKPC usually discontinue the claim nearer the hearing date when they see a well defended claim. You will need to go through the whole process, but you are unlikely to see the inside of a courthouse as long as you follow the advice on this forum.

Debszzzz2

With an issue date of 5th February, you have until 4pm on Monday 11th March to submit your defence. 

With those PoC, you need to include the CEL v Chan transcripts embedded in your defence as a preliminary matter for the allocating judge as they fail to clarify what terms were breached and therefore no cause of action.

KeithP

peterwhitehead2 said:

Issue date on the claims form is the 5th Feb. I submitted the AOS on the 9th Feb.

With a Claim Issue Date of 5th February, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 9th February, you have until 4pm on Friday 8th March 2024 to file your Defence.

That's nearly three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave 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'.

Debszzzz2

FYI I have had it confirmed by a district judge that it is irrelevant when the AoS is submitted as long as it is by the first working day on or after 19 days of the "issue date". Filing the AoS before the "deemed" date of service is irrelevant and does not shorten the time to file the defence.

lam2222

Hi

Does this look ok as an initial draft?

Using the template from the 2nd post from this:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1

Added this from the hharry version.

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. 

plus the entire transcript (won't paste all of it but first page here)

subsequent points renumbered.

Short 5th point stating why the car was there. (think it needs more detail?)

 5. Car was parked at the location to attend a birthday party at the MadHouse - child play area. They advised that they have free secure parking available.

It's basically the hharry version, which from that point onwards looks to be the same as the template defence.

Many thanks!

Coupon-mad

You might see some useful paragraphs to add by plagiarising these:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80612159/#Comment_80612159

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80616955#Comment_80616955

lam2222

Hi there

It's been a while but I've been given a hearing date of the 6th December for my old thread here Car park - claim form advice — MoneySavingExpert Forum, so I'm drafting up my witness statement.

I've been copying and adapting ones found on this message board, specifically from
GolfR12 and @vincentvega27

I've got a draft here. Would appreciate any feedback anyone may have.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ABmkzeOIg0mqFUpnNkWHxAQaTZoWFKxA/view?usp=drive_link

I was thinking raising the point that at no time I entered into a contract - a point along these lines.

The Fairlie v Fenton Case against this claim

12. The Claimant's sign states that their role is to 'enforce', 'monitor' and 'patrol' and it is clear that their limited function is to facilitate the terms offered by the principal, including 'contact the DVLA' and 'issue PCNs' (See Exhibit 01). This limited function is confirmed in the Claimant's own Linked In page at https://www.linkedin.com/company/civil-enforcement-ltd where they proclaim 'Civil Enforcement Ltd process and administer Parking Charge Notices (PCN's) on the behalf of UK Small Businesses and Major UK Brands.'

13. Unlike in the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, there is no sentence in the signage that offers or attempts to create a contract between this Claimant and a driver. A parking management firm could use wording to make themselves personally liable on the contract and they could make a contractual offer themselves by saying 'by parking at this site you, the driver, are entering into a contract with us' (or words to that effect) but there is no such contract on the signs.  In fact, at no point is a driver told that they are entering into any contractual relationship.

14. 'ABC Car Park Solutions Limited' is written at the top of the signs where the disputed terms are stated. Therefore, those terms and the licence to park is made by the principal, ABC Car Park Solutions LTD. 

15. Therefore, unlike in ParkingEye v Beavis, this Claimant has placed their service, and themselves, in the position of an agent/broker/middle-man, making the bargain for another party and collecting monies (the parking fees from the machine) for that party. The Defendant avers that this Claimant does not retain nor pay VAT on the tariffs and they have no possessory title in this land.  Fatally to their claim, the Claimant made no offer of a contract to the driver, at all.  The Claimant is put to strict proof if their position is to the contrary of that stated by this Defendant, who takes the point that the principles established by the authority of Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169 apply and there is no contractual relationship between this Claimant and the Defendant.

However exhibit 7 in my link, the UKPC notice, does have a comment along the lines of 'If the parking contract terms are breached'  - so a contract is mentioned, but nothing to state that I'm entering one by parking there.

Think that's enough to negate the Fairlie v Fenton argument?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Don't use any of that!  Your claimant isn't Civil Enforcement Ltd !

Recent winning WS were by:

@Defendant911

@Harry77