County court claim form by secure parking solutions ltd

Gr1pr

All for later in the process, which is no longer an appeal, its a defence, based on the defence templates by coupon mad, in her defence template thread, so a concise defence that is around 30 paragraphs where you don't change most of them

So you draft your defence and post the first half a dozen paragraphs on here for checking 

smbx

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: 12345678

Between

SECURE PARKING SOLUTIONS LTD

(Claimant) 

- and -  

my name and address

 (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').

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. 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 and driver.

 

3.1 The defendant’s car was on the premises of the Prince’s pub, Stafford Street, WS2 8DF in Walsall, on Wednesday 2nd of August 2023 at 5:05 pm.

3.2 The defendant was with two young children (inc. one pre-school child) and was planning to shop at Sports Direct.

3.3 The board displayed at the Prince Pub parking facility offered to pay via the Ring Go app.

3.4 The defendant registered with the Ring Go app, but failed to receive the code on their phone to complete registration, even after several attempts.

3.5 After getting nowhere with the app, the defendant realised they had been parked already on the premises for a fair number of minutes and that the CCTV of the premises would have registered their car.

3.6 The defendant took records of the contact details displayed on the premises, including a phone number and an email address, with the intention to get in touch with the parking owners and explain the difficulty encountered to pay via the Ring Go app.

3.7 The defendant called the phone number displayed but only to be received by a voicemail stating that there was no agent available at the time and, there was no option to leave a voice mail.

3.8 The defendant kept the details with the intention to try and call again later in order to resolve payment issues directly with the car park owners.

3.9 The defendant and the 2 children walked from the Prince Pub parking facility to Sports Direct, via St Paul’s Street (0.4 mile), spent some time at the said shop, then walked back to the Prince Pub car park and drove off. 

3.10 It appears from online information that the Prince pub, also known as Blutcher, has been closed since mid-2019. The Defendant therefore had no opportunity to discuss the PCN with the Pub owner. 

 3.11. The defendant explained to POPLA all their efforts to register with the RingGo app and to make payment on the day. 

3.12. The defendant explained to POPLA that they phoned Secure Parking Solutions ltd on the day at the number advertised on site but to no avail.

3.13. The defendant explained to POPLA that they successfully registered and made payment later on the RingGo app, thinking this was the better solution since they had had no support from Secure Parking Solutions ltd in the matter despite attempts to reach them. 

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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).

9. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') published a statutory Parking Code of Practice in February 2022: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice.

The Ministerial Foreword is damning: "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists." 

10. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code (temporarily withdrawn) it is now 'live' after a draft Impact Assessment (IA) was published on 30th July 2023. The Government's analysis is found here:  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

11. Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 state that the parking industry has shown the DLUHC that the true minor cost of pre-action stage totals a mere £8.42 per case (not per PCN).

12. This claim has been enhanced by a disproportionate sum, believed to enrich the litigating legal team. It appears to be double recovery, duplicating the intended 'legal fees' cap set by small claims track rules.

[...]

EDIT: thanks @ Couponmad. I have updated since your message on this morning. Any suggestions, please? 

Also regarding my other successive posts, please? 

smbx

LDast said:

If the interest they've calculated is more than £5.98 then the statement of truth is anything but that. They are abusing the process by claiming interest on the original £100 charge from the 28th day after the issue date of the PCN to the date of filing the claim unless they've used the following calculation:

Due date of original £100 PCN was 31/08/2023 (28 days after the issue date of the NtK). The date of Issue of the claim is 30/05/2024 (they cannot calculate interest any later than the issue date of the claim). That's a total of 8 months and 30 days or 273 days or 0.7479 years.

£100 × 0.08 × 0.7479 ≈ £5.98

If their interest figure is greater than £5.98 then they have breached the following CPRs:

• CPR 1.1: The claimant's act of claiming an incorrect amount and signing a statement of truth undermines the fair and just resolution of the case, by breaching the overriding objective.
• CPR 16.2: The particulars of the claim must include the amount of money being claimed, and this amount must be accurate. Claiming an incorrect amount breaches this rule.
  
• CPR 22.4: If a party signs a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth, they may are committing a contempt of court.
  
• CPR 32.14: A person who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth is subject to proceedings for contempt of court.
  

This all amounts to an abuse of process. An abuse of process in the context of a claim when the court's procedures are used in a way that is unfair, oppressive, or improper. Claiming an incorrect amount and signing a statement of truth amounts to an abuse of process.

• CPR 3.4(2): The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court:
  • That the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim;
  • That the statement of case is an abuse of the court’s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings;
  • That there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction, or court order.

Claiming an incorrect amount should be seen as an abuse of process if it is done intentionally to mislead the court or the opposing party.

CPR Part 1 - The Overriding Objective

• CPR 1.1: The overriding objective is to enable the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost. Abuse of process undermines this objective by preventing fair and efficient case resolution.

CPR Part 22 - Statements of Truth

• CPR 22.1 and 22.3: Submitting a document verified by a statement of truth that contains false information (e.g., an incorrect claim amount) can be considered an abuse of process.

CPR Part 44 - General Rules About Costs

• CPR 44.11: The court may disallow costs where it considers that a party or its legal representative has behaved unreasonably. Abusing the process by claiming incorrect amounts could be deemed unreasonable behavior, potentially leading to adverse cost orders.

This alone could lead to the following if argued properly:

The claim being struck out (CPR 3.4(2)).Adverse cost orders (CPR 44.11).Contempt of court proceedings (CPR 32.14)

Also, I am not too sure how/where to include the above points in the body of the defence, please?  (Thank you LDast for these).

smbx

Finally, should I add in the defence that, after indeed successfully registering with the RingGo app, I made a payment but for another time and date obviously, that amounted to the same payment I should have managed to complete in the first place, please?

smbx

a/Any known defence cases that won on similar grounds as mine - technical issues due to issues with technology, use of apps.. - with no assistance from the car park owners/management, please?
With everything digital, there are bound to be people who encountered such problems. 

b/And if I showed I was willing to pay despite all - and I did! just not for the same date/time - is that working in my favour, please? or will the judge stick to the terms 'Payments are not accepted retrospectively for parking'' as stated on their board, please?

Coupon-mad

No need to show us the whole template please.

Remove the addresses in headings. Just Claimant & Defendant names at the top.

Twice you've said "The defendant’s car was parked for 37 min 06 sec."  But it wasn't. Don't use their timings.  That's not "parked" time.

Don't talk about going off into town to buy shoes.  Remove all that detail.

Instead just talk about their system failing and your efforts to resolve the dispute on the day and afterwards using POPLA.

ALL paragraphs need a number.

smbx

Coupon-mad said:

No need to show us the whole template please.

Remove the addresses in headings. Just Claimant & Defendant names at the top.

Twice you've said "The defendant’s car was parked for 37 min 06 sec."  But it wasn't. Don't use their timings.  That's not "parked" time.

Don't talk about going off into town to buy shoes.  Remove all that detail.

Instead just talk about their system failing and your efforts to resolve the dispute on the day and afterwards using POPLA.

ALL paragraphs need a number.

Thanks @ Couponmad. I have updated since your message this morning. Any suggestions, please? 

Also regarding my other successive posts, please?

smbx

LDast said:

If the interest they've calculated is more than £5.98 then the statement of truth is anything but that. They are abusing the process by claiming interest on the original £100 charge from the 28th day after the issue date of the PCN to the date of filing the claim unless they've used the following calculation:

Due date of original £100 PCN was 31/08/2023 (28 days after the issue date of the NtK). The date of Issue of the claim is 30/05/2024 (they cannot calculate interest any later than the issue date of the claim). That's a total of 8 months and 30 days or 273 days or 0.7479 years.

£100 × 0.08 × 0.7479 ≈ £5.98

If their interest figure is greater than £5.98 then they have breached the following CPRs:

• CPR 1.1: The claimant's act of claiming an incorrect amount and signing a statement of truth undermines the fair and just resolution of the case, by breaching the overriding objective.
• CPR 16.2: The particulars of the claim must include the amount of money being claimed, and this amount must be accurate. Claiming an incorrect amount breaches this rule.
  
• CPR 22.4: If a party signs a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth, they may are committing a contempt of court.
  
• CPR 32.14: A person who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth is subject to proceedings for contempt of court.
  

This all amounts to an abuse of process. An abuse of process in the context of a claim when the court's procedures are used in a way that is unfair, oppressive, or improper. Claiming an incorrect amount and signing a statement of truth amounts to an abuse of process.

• CPR 3.4(2): The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court:
  • That the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim;
  • That the statement of case is an abuse of the court’s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings;
  • That there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction, or court order.

Claiming an incorrect amount should be seen as an abuse of process if it is done intentionally to mislead the court or the opposing party.

CPR Part 1 - The Overriding Objective

• CPR 1.1: The overriding objective is to enable the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost. Abuse of process undermines this objective by preventing fair and efficient case resolution.

CPR Part 22 - Statements of Truth

• CPR 22.1 and 22.3: Submitting a document verified by a statement of truth that contains false information (e.g., an incorrect claim amount) can be considered an abuse of process.

CPR Part 44 - General Rules About Costs

• CPR 44.11: The court may disallow costs where it considers that a party or its legal representative has behaved unreasonably. Abusing the process by claiming incorrect amounts could be deemed unreasonable behavior, potentially leading to adverse cost orders.

This alone could lead to the following if argued properly:

The claim being struck out (CPR 3.4(2)).Adverse cost orders (CPR 44.11).Contempt of court proceedings (CPR 32.14)

@LDast thanks for this. would the following defence do, please?

1. Interest Calculation

• The claimant has calculated interest on the original £100 charge from the 28th day after the issue date of the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) until the date of filing the claim.
• However, the due date of the original £100 PCN was 31/08/2023 (28 days after the issue date of the Notice to Keeper).
• The date of issue of the claim is 30/05/2024, and interest cannot be calculated beyond this date.
• The correct interest calculation is: £100 × 0.08 × 0.7479 ≈ £5.98.

2. Breach of CPRs

The claimant’s actions may constitute a breach of the following Civil Procedure Rules (CPRs):

a. CPR 1.1: Overriding Objective

• The claimant’s act of claiming an incorrect amount and signing a statement of truth undermines the fair and just resolution of the case.
• The overriding objective is to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost, which abuse of process hinders.

b. CPR 16.2: Accuracy of Particulars

• The particulars of the claim must include an accurate amount.
• Claiming an incorrect amount breaches this rule.

c. CPR 22.4: Contempt of Court

• Signing a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth may constitute contempt of court.

d. CPR 32.14: False Statements

• Making a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief is subject to proceedings for contempt of court.

3. Abuse of Process

• Claiming an incorrect amount and signing a statement of truth amounts to an abuse of process.
• Abuse of process occurs when court procedures are used unfairly, oppressively, or improperly.

4. Potential Consequences

If argued properly, the following consequences could apply:

a. CPR 3.4(2): Striking Out

• The court may strike out the claim if it lacks reasonable grounds or obstructs just disposal.

b. CPR 44.11: Adverse Cost Orders

• Unreasonable behavior (such as claiming incorrect amounts) could lead to adverse cost orders.

c. CPR 32.14: Contempt Proceedings

• Intentionally misleading the court may result in contempt proceedings.

smbx

Hello there,

I have not heard back from previous posts and have only today available.

This is how my defence looks like now. Do you have any advice asap, please?:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: 12345678

Between

SECURE PARKING SOLUTIONS LTD

(Claimant) 

- and -  

me

 (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').

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. 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 and driver.

 

3.1. The defendant’s car was on the premises of the Prince’s pub, Stafford Street, WS2 8DF in Walsall, on Wednesday 2nd of August 2023 at 5:05 pm.

3.2. The defendant was with two young children (inc. one pre-school child) and was planning to shop at Sports Direct.

3.3. The board displayed at the Prince Pub parking facility offered to pay via the Ring Go app.

3.4. The defendant registered with the Ring Go app, but failed to receive the code on their phone to complete registration, even after several attempts.

3.5. After getting nowhere with the app, the defendant realised they had been parked already on the premises for a fair number of minutes and that the CCTV of the premises would have registered their car.

3.6. The defendant took records of the contact details displayed on the premises, to get in touch with the parking owners and explain the difficulty encountered to pay via the Ring Go app.

3.7. The defendant called the phone number displayed on site, but only to hear a recorded message stating that no agent was available at the time. The recorded message instructed them to send any queries to an email address, with no option to leave a voicemail.

3.8 The defendant and the 2 children walked from the Prince Pub parking facility to Sports Direct, via St Paul’s Street (0.4 mile), spent some time there, then walked back to the Prince Pub car park and drove off. 

3.9. On 07.08.23, the defendant emailed Secure Parking Solutions ltd at the email address given in their answering message, detailing the difficulty encountered to pay via the Ring Go app and willingness to pay still.

3.10. The defendant received the PCN.

3.11. It appears from online information that the Prince pub, also known as Blutcher, has been closed since mid-2019. The Defendant therefore had no opportunity to discuss the PCN with the Pub owner. 

3.12. The defendant explained to POPLA all their efforts to register with the RingGo app and to make payment on the day. 

3.13. The defendant explained to POPLA that they phoned Secure Parking Solutions ltd at the number advertised on site but to no avail.

3.14. The defendant explained to POPLA that they emailed Secure parking Solutions ltd on 07.08.23 detailing their issues to register on the RingGo app, and their failed attempt to speak to an operator or leave a voicemail at their phone number provided on site.

3.15. The defendant explained to POPLA that they successfully registered and made payment later, on the RingGo app, thinking this was the better solution since they had had no support from Secure Parking Solutions ltd in the matter despite several attempts to reach them. 

 

4. Interest Calculation

4.1. The claimant has calculated interest on the original £100 charge from the 28th day after the issue date of the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) until the date of filing the claim.

4.2. However, the due date of the original £100 PCN was 31/08/2023 (28 days after the issue date of the Notice to Keeper).

4.3. The date of issue of the claim is 30/05/2024, and interest cannot be calculated beyond this date.

4.4. The correct interest calculation is: £100 × 0.08 × 0.7479 ≈ £5.98.

5. Breach of CPRs

The claimant’s actions may constitute a breach of the following Civil Procedure Rules (CPRs):

5.1. CPR 1.1: Overriding Objective

·        The claimant’s act of claiming an incorrect amount and signing a statement of truth undermines the fair and just resolution of the case.

·        The overriding objective is to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost, which abuse of process hinders.

5.2. CPR 16.2: Accuracy of Particulars

·        The particulars of the claim must include an accurate amount.

·        Claiming an incorrect amount breaches this rule.

5.3. CPR 22.4: Contempt of Court

·        Signing a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth may constitute contempt of court.

5.4. CPR 32.14: False Statements

·        Making a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief is subject to proceedings for contempt of court.

6. Abuse of Process

·        Claiming an incorrect amount and signing a statement of truth amounts to an abuse of process.

·        Abuse of process occurs when court procedures are used unfairly, oppressively, or improperly.

7. Potential Consequences

the following consequences could apply:

7.1. CPR 3.4(2): Striking Out

·        The court may strike out the claim if it lacks reasonable grounds or obstructs just disposal.

7.2. CPR 44.11: Adverse Cost Orders

·        Unreasonable behavior (such as claiming incorrect amounts) could lead to adverse cost orders.

7.3. CPR 32.14: Contempt Proceedings

·        Intentionally misleading the court may result in contempt proceedings.

 

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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).

13. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') published a statutory Parking Code of Practice in February 2022: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice.

The Ministerial Foreword is damning: "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists." 

14. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code (temporarily withdrawn) it is now 'live' after a draft Impact Assessment (IA) was published on 30th July 2023. The Government's analysis is found here:  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

15. Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 state that the parking industry has shown the DLUHC that the true minor cost of pre-action stage totals a mere £8.42 per case (not per PCN).

16. This claim has been enhanced by a disproportionate sum, believed to enrich the litigating legal team. It appears to be double recovery, duplicating the intended 'legal fees' cap set by small claims track rules.

<...>

KeithP

As mentioned earlier - "you have until 4pm on Tuesday 2nd July to file your defence".