UPDATE: 2 PCNs received from QDR - Witness Statement Stage

terri99

Hello to all,

I pray that all is well.

Newbie to this forum, though I have spent several hours trying to read through previous advice. I know my case is probably not unique, but I have a couple of questions. 

I received a court claim served by QDR Solicitors Ltd (on behalf of Euro Car Parks Ltd) for two alleged offences for the same vehicle at Priory Retails Car park in Feb and then March of 2022. 

PCN’s were ignored (outdated strategy - big mistake I now realise). Previous paperwork (PCNs,NTKs etc.) are no longer in my possession. Nor is there much recollections of the said offences. Some circumstances that may be relevant:

• The driver had a 2 year old and a breastfeeding 2/3 month old at the time. Baby was born premature and took absolutely ages to feed, well over 30/45mins per time.

• This retail park has over 15 shops, restaurants etc. very easy to lose track of time and overstay, especially with two very young children.

• The driver spent money in at least some of the shops visited.

• There's often loads of traffic getting out of that car park (as there's only one way in/out).

They are claiming approx. £400-£500 for the two alleged contraventions.

Claim Form Issue date:  16th Feb 2024

Detailed Particulars Issue date: 21st Feb 2024

Steps taken so far:

1) Acknowledgement of Service – completed 28th Feb 2024

2) SAR Request to Euro Car Parks Ltd – Sent 29th Feb 2024, with a redacted copy of a bank statement and utility bill, showing only my name and address. They responded back asking for a copy V5C as proof of ownership of any vehicles to be included in the search. Is this reasonable?

3) I have started a draft of my defence, which I hope to post shortly, but I have a question..

• The Claim form was sent on 16th Feb 2024. Particulars of Claim were very generic. Stated that they would send me detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form.

• Detailed particulars arrived dated 21st Feb 2024, however, these don’t contain any better info. For example they claim that the contravention was “ YOUR VEHICLE WAS PARKED LONGER THAN THE MAXIMUM PERIOD ALLOWED”, but they only stated one instance of time i.e. 1:20:00 PM for each contravention. No idea if this is the start time or end time, or how long the driver is alleged to have overstayed by.

In absence of the original PCNs and NTKs, I am not sure how to defend myself with this. I have submitted a SAR, as detailed above, but given they have 30 days to respond to this, I may not receive the information soon enough before my defence submission deadline, to be able to refer to any of it.

What should my next steps be in terms of my defence? Should I send off the redacted V5C?

Your assistance is very much appreciated.

Coupon-mad

Doing a SAR was wrong. No harm done but don't follow that up.

Read the other five QDR Euro threads.  I see you have the full POC so you can copy/adapt what they did!

I won't link them as that would be me doing the forum search I'm advising you to do now.

Have you done the AOS? When?

Fruitcake

They are not offences.

You do not need to send a copy of the V5C. It has nothing to do with vehicle ownership and actually states this on the document. You have provided sufficient personal data to satisfy data protection requirements, and the ICO has stated that asking for more is unreasonable.

In your defence, you should include the relevant part of the Equality Act 2010 that refers to breastfeeding mothers of infants under 6 months of age. Read this in conjunction with the parts about certain persons having protected characteristics, and that they are entitled to reasonable adjustments (such as being allowing more time to breastfeed).
Failing to anticipate the needs of such a person with protected characteristics is indirect discrimination, a breach of the Act, and a criminal offence. Once the "service provider" gas been made aware of the subject's protected characteristics, pursuing the charge becomes direct discrimination, a further breach of the Act, and further criminal offence.

Plan A is always a complaint to the landowner, and the managers and/or CEOs of any stores visited, and your MP. It is never too late to do so.

Where did the alleged event occur? It may have cropped up here before.

 

 

terri99

Thank you for your responses so far. 

I did the AoS on the 28th of Feb.

I'll look into QDR Euro threads maybe tomorrow. 

Ok I'll add in about the breastfeeding equalities act.

Would the landowner, and the managers and/or CEOs of the stores visited have any power to stop a case that's already gone to court? I thought only the judge could dismiss this now?

The alleged offence took place at Priory Retail Park - Colliers Wood.

Does it matter that I'm not aware of what times the driver was there, or how long their overstay was?

Hopefully I'll be able to post my draft in a couple of days. 

Coupon-mad

Does it matter that I'm not aware of what times the driver was there, or how long their overstay was?

Not at all.  Lots of cases are like yours but read the QDR Euro threads from January & February.

terri99

Ok here is my first attempt at a defence..

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 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 appears 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

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.

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 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

[CEL v Chan transcript png’s inserted here]

The facts known to the Defendant:

4. The Defendant is unable to recall the specific details that led to the alleged infractions that resulted in ‘parking charges’ being issued as the dates in question are all unremarkable days from 2 years ago. However, there are several reasons why an infraction may have occurred. First, Priory Retail Park has over 7 large shops, supermarkets, restaurants etc. very easy to lose track of time and overstay, especially as a lone parent with three very young children who were aged four, two, and two/three months at the time. Priory Retail Park is often heavily congested due to its layout and the number of shops the car park services, leading to delays in getting parked and exiting in a timely manner especially with three young children. 

5. The infant in question was born premature and took a longer time than normal to feed, well over 30/45mins per time. Under the Equality Act 2010 (EA2010), the defendant should not be discriminated against for breast feeding her baby. Reasonable adjustment for breastfeeding mothers is expressly required by the Act. Subsections 17(3) and (4) read as follows:-

• (3)A person (A) discriminates against a woman if, in the period of 26 weeks beginning with the day on which she gives birth, A treats her unfavourably because she has given birth.

• (4)The reference in subsection (3) to treating a woman unfavourably because she has given birth includes, in particular, a reference to treating her unfavourably because she is breast-feeding..

6.  The child in question was less than 26 weeks old at the time of the alleged parking event.  A copy of the child's birth certificate will be provided with the witness statement. The operator is not entitled to any further 'evidence' of breastfeeding.

7.  The defendant is not aware of how long the alleged overstay was (due to the inadequate PoC), but she must be allowed a reasonable time adjustment by law.  Please note that this is a respectful demand for application of a legal right and not a request for consideration of mitigating or extenuating circumstances. Please also be aware that failing to anticipate the needs of such a person with protected characteristics is indirect discrimination, a breach of the Act, and a criminal offence. Once the claimant has been made aware of the defendant’s protected characteristics, pursuing the charge becomes direct discrimination, a further breach of the Act, and further criminal offence.

8. The Defendant has seen no actual evidence of continuous parking time and has no idea about any breach, which is denied.  The Defendant shops at the location but has never knowingly overstayed, so it is suggested that this instance is more likely to be a typical ANPR error known as a 'double dip' (a phrase even used by Government in the new Code of Practice linked in this defence).  This is known in the industry as an inherent and well-documented likely flaw of ANPR, which cannot be relied upon to sign off a PCN without human checks.  AOS members are required to carry out manual checks to discount the possibility of 'orphan images' in the middle, denoting two visits within 24 hours, wrongly read as one period of parking (for example to return something, or to buy a forgotten item).  Given that ANPR defaults to 'first in, last out' images, the Claimant is put to strict proof of all ANPR captures of the vehicle onsite that day and of their documented human checks before this PCN was issued.

[rest of template to follow, with sections re-numbered..]

Le_Kirk

You have two paragraphs numbered #3.  You are using the @hharry100 defence which is normally used for claims that have vague or sparse particulars (POC) but you then go on to give chapter and verse about an overstay. Have you shown us the POC on the claim form?
I think that if the POC is claiming an oversty, your defence as written (without CEL v Chan) would be perfectly adequate to defend any overstay.

Coupon-mad

I don't understand why you are using the hharry defence when you've received a full POC.

terri99

Hi all, 

Thank you for your feedback. I guess I am not sure what is meant by "vague and sparse" PoC; I feel the ones I received were pretty useless. 

Nevertheless, I have posted them here fyi.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nGl30XHZlLvftHbvVhuXqehRKuRH5taH/view?usp=sharing

However, if its best I submit my defence without @harry100 then I'm happy to remove that section.

I have noted the numbering error above, thankyou.

Le_Kirk

Your POC as posted seem to be extremely detailed and you would have trouble persuading a judge that they were sparse or vague - if you don't know the meaning of those words just ask Auntie Google  (or maybe you have a dictionary at home) - so you cannot use the @hhary100 defence.  Your defence needs to answer the POC - why you overstayed on two different occasions.  Put your defence in paragraph #3 and edit paragraph #2 to suit whether you were keeper and driver or just keeper and not driver.  If you want to show us for critique, please post only those paragraphs you have edited or added - we do NOT need to see the whole template (although of course that goes by e-mail to CNBC).

terri99

I just thought that since I'm not able to determine basics from the particulars like how long this alleged over stay was,  or what time (s) it occurred,  that would qualify as vague. 

Nevertheless I shall rewrite my defense and post it here shortly. 

Thankyou