Residential parking fine - claim advice

anony-moose

Yeah, the one I just attended was a dispute resolution hearing, so think the next is the final hearing, but can't see those words exactly on any correspondence.

I didn't admit that I had made the mistake with the email address thankfully. I'd dealt with the solicitors before, so had previous email addresses, then searched for some on here and had the email of the person who sent me docs too - so I sent to about different addresses, because I wasn't sure which was the proper one to use. One of them got through, but I suspect it was an old address of someone who maybe doesn't work there anymore. I genuinely think outlook tried to correct the email on the ones with the wrong domain name. It annoyed me because I am usually really careful with stuff like that.

Soon after posting this last week I got a letter from the solicitors saying that they won't be attending in person and they re-attached their WS.

I will send the WS and photos along - is it safe to post the photos and do I need to be careful around using names etc? 

Coupon-mad

Redact names and refs, your VRM, etc.

anony-moose

@Coupon-mad Here are the photos. I'm sorry it's taken a ridiculous amount of time to come back to you - I've not stopped over the last few weeks. Really appreciate all your help so far.

Coupon-mad

The actual sign has some of the best and cleverest contractual wording I've seen.

But as you showed, they are hard to notice: one sign is turned backwards (impossible to see) another is up a grassy knoll and there's no entrance sign (at all) from DE and no advance warning (at the entrance) that cameras are recording your vehicle and why.

You will be arguing that these signs fail the IPC Code of Practice clause about mandatory entrance signs AND they fail the legal test of fairness and prominence that a court must consider, per s71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and in view of s62 and the examples of unfair terms & notices in Schedule 2 of that Act.

And they also fail the ICO Surveillance Camera Code of Practice rules and by virtue of that failure, it can be further argued that they breach the Data Protection Act 2018.

anony-moose

Here is the first bit of my WS:

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

X. The Defendant draws to the attention of the court 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.

X. 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. (See Exhibit XXXX)

X. Similarly, at the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing. (See Exhibit XXXX)

X. Likewise, in January 2023 (also without a hearing) District Judge Sprague, sitting at the County Court at Luton, struck out a similarly badly-pleaded parking claim with a full explanation of his reasoning. (See Exhibit XXXX)

X. Furthermore, at Preston District Judge Merrills also struck out a claim for not disclosing any reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and failing to comply with CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 - 7.5. (See Exhibit XXXX)

X. The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs.  The specifics of this case lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached. This lack of specificity places me, the Defendant, at a distinct disadvantage, as I find myself in the position of having to mount a defence without a clear understanding of the precise nature of the alleged violation.

Le_Kirk

If that is a witness statement,  then it needs to be written in the first person; you are the witness, therefore "I, my, me" not "the defendant".
There are two persuasive arguments, CEL v Chan and CPMS v Akande. Use them both if your case is suitable, I.e. the POC were sparse and vague. 
See here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80939024/#Comment_80939024

anony-moose

Sequence of events

X. 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.

X. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

X. The Defendant regularly used the car park in question as a visitor, without issue, from 2020 - 2023 and was in a relationship with the occupant of XXXX.

X. Visits were in accordance with parking restrictions and the right for visitors to park on the residential car park, with the Defendant holding and displaying a valid visitor permit in the windscreen of his car. (See Exhibit XXXX)

X. The alleged incident occurred in XXXX. The Defendant cannot be certain of the exact date when he became aware of the parking charge, but it is believed the Defendant first received a letter in the post in XXXX.

X. The Defendant had been in receipt of a further 5 letters from the Claimant. The tone of the letters and subsequent ones was border-line threatening and demanded payment of £160 immediately, otherwise the fine amount would increase or legal action taken against the Defendant. Additionally, it implied that ‘local’ debt recovery agents would be calling round like bailiffs, leaving the Defendant feeling harassed/distressed in fear of having unjust legal action taken against him.

X. The written correspondence with the Defendant had threatened further unexplained charges to the original parking charge figure should payment not be received by arbitrary deadlines, with no evidence of how this extra charge had been calculated and, in an attempt, to pressure the Defendant into making a payment.

X. None of the correspondence properly detailed the supposed infringement or contained photographic evidence of the same.

anony-moose

Signage/contract ambiguity

X. Signage at the car park was hard to read due to being placed well above head height and due to the use of small text. (See Exhibits XXXX)

X. There are no signs placed at the entrance to XXXX and contrary to evidence provided, signage is scant across the full estate, totalling less than half of the amount claimed by the Claimant. (See Exhibits XXXX)

X. Signage was obscured by foliage and positioned facing away from the roads and pavement, where they could not be seen properly. (See Exhibits XXXX)

X. The signage in the car park is different and inconsistent with the sign provided as evidence. (See Exhibit XXXX)

X. Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice states: “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”.
The signs match none of these criteria.

X. Despite having fully abided by the contract, the Defendant feels, in any instance, that they could not be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with appropriate sign regulations. The Defendant does not accept that a contract could be entered into on this basis.

X. The permit holder/resident, with whom the Defendant was in a relationship with, has never entered into an agreement with the Claimant via a formal contract or as part of their tenancy agreement.

X. The same permit holder/resident, was given the permit after receiving a knock on her door and then provided with an updated permit for 2023 via her letterbox, with no terms of agreement provided or contract being entered into.

anony-moose

Conclusion

X. The claim is entirely without merit and the Claimant is urged to discontinue now, to avoid incurring costs and wasting the court's time and that of the Defendant.

X. 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.

X. 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.

X. 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))."

Le_Kirk

We clearly posted at about the same time; please read what I wrote about "the defendant" versus "I"