Parking fine for private parking Not the driver but registered keeper

jaykodi

LDast said:

You are very fortunate that this is a claim filed through DCB Legal. The template defence you use must include the "Preliminary matter" of the CEL v Chan appeal judgment and the embedded transcript before the "Facts known to the defendant" section, as can be seen here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80387013/#Comment_80387013

For your para #4 in the above example defence, you would only need to change the last bit to:

"...and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper but was not the driver."

As you know you were not the driver but are aware of the parking event, for your para #5 you should just stay the facts that are known to you along the lines of:

"The driver parked at the location because..." Just stay that they were a customer/visiting etc. No need to elaborate anything at this stage. No need to go on about there being two names on the insurance. Anyone, with the owners permission can drive any car as long as their own insurance covers them for third party liability.

As long as you use the template correctly and just add/edit your own bit for paras #4 and #5, you can guarantee that it will eventually be discontinued and you will see your username in lights in the AOBTD thread. here:

DCB LEGAL RECORD OF PRIVATE PARKING COURT CLAIM DISCONTINUATIONS

Thanks for the reply

is this good enough?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

Group nexus LTD

(Claimant) 

- and -  

XXXXXXXX                        

 (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. 

The facts known to the Defendant:

4. 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 but was not the driver.

5.  The driver, who was visiting the store, only parked at the location for a short period. 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.

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. This is a classic example where 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).

LDast

That'd do it as long as you include the rest of the template defence. You can sign the defence statement of truth by just typing your full name in there. Email the whole defence as a PDF attachment to the CNBC and make sure you receive an auto acknowledgement email in response.

1505grandad

Just checking  -  have you stated the name of the claimant in the heading as it appears on the claim form?

Coupon-mad

No because the Claim form will not just say 'Group Nexus Ltd'.

This is not correct as facts for a Buzz Bingo site, surely:

The driver, who was visiting the store, only parked at the location for a short period. 

jaykodi

1505grandad said:

Just checking  -  have you stated the name of the claimant in the heading as it appears on the claim form?

thanks for your reply - I willl state the full claimant name in the final copy - this is still in draft format

jaykodi

Coupon-mad said:

No because the Claim form will not just say 'Group Nexus Ltd'.

This is not correct as facts for a Buzz Bingo site, surely:

The driver, who was visiting the store, only parked at the location for a short period. 

Thanks for the feedback - You are correct, the claim form does not just say group nexus ltd, this is only a draft copy and I will include the full name in the final copy. Also, there are alot of stores beside  and around the buzz bingo and I think that particular location must have been within their premises. 

what would you suggest I add to #5 as she definitely did not visit the buzz bingo.

thanks for all your help

Coupon-mad

Maybe not the word 'store'.

She was a genuine patron of businesses on site and any parking terms were not seen, so cannot have been sufficiently prominent.

jaykodi

Coupon-mad said:

Maybe not the word 'store'.

She was a genuine patron of businesses on site and any parking terms were not seen, so cannot have been sufficiently prominent.

Thank you very much for all your help.

jaykodi

Update

I have now submitted my defence and received an automated response acknowledging the email 

thanks all once again

Nellymoser

Could I ask you to support this.
So many people don't receive 1st/2nd pcn but the £170 payment due letter often manages to drop through letter boxes. PPCs always claim their letters were sent though offer no evidence to prove this. A letter's issue date is not it's sending date nor does it prove the letter was sent.

Since PPCs CHOOSE NOT to provide evidence of their posting date and delivery we must continue to press gov to ensure they do. Please sign/share these petitions.

Require communications from Private Parking companies to be traceable/trackable. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/652355

Immediately Reintroduce Private Parking Code of Practice. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/660922

Thanks. Hope your claim gets discontinued.