County court claim form by secure parking solutions ltd

smbx

KeithP said:

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

I know ... but sadly with my work I am not always in front of a pc/online. 

Coupon-mad

Too much detail in paragraph 3. Like I said:

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.

LDast

smbx said:

• 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.

You have not shown us the amounts claimed on the N1SDT claim form which is why I suggested the above calculations. You should do your won calculations as you are the only one who knows what they've put on the claim form.

The main point is that you don't know how the Claimant has calculated interest or from and to which dates. What you are showing is that based on the only available information to you, interest should be calculated as shown from no earlier than the due date to no later than the claim issue date. The claimant has not shown whether the "date issued" of there PCN as shown in the PoC is the date of the alleged breach of contract (date of parking) or whether it is the date the actual postal PCN was sent. 

If the interest was calculated on the basis that the "date issued" was the date the postal PCN was sent and only on the parking charge sum allegedly due, £100, the interest on the claim form should be no more than £5.98. I suspect that DCB Legals mendacious signer of statements of truth uses "date issued" as the date of the parking event and so it is impossible to determine the calculations they have used.

You would need to put all that as a preliminary matter after your paragraph #1, possibly as follows:

Preliminary Matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Claim should be struck out on the basis that it contravenes Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). PoFA clearly stipulates that a creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued. The original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the claimant was for £100. The claimant's current claim is for £170, which exceeds the amount of the unpaid parking charges as stated in the original notice. The Claimant’s attempt to claim an unlawful amount constitutes an abuse of process and should not be allowed to proceed. The Defendant respectfully request the allocating judge to dismiss the claim on the basis of the Claimant’s contravention of Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of PoFA and thereby CPR 1.1, CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) and CPR 27.14 and to award costs to the Defendant for having to defend against this improper claim.

3. Additionally, the Claimant has provided no breakdown as to how they have calculated the interest on the claimed sum. The Defendant understands that the claim made by the Claimant is supported by a statement of truth, asserting the accuracy of the information presented. Providing inaccurate information in such a statement has serious consequences. Upon reviewing the claim, the defendant has identified an overcharge in the interest calculation. The claimant has charged interest at a rate of 8% per over an unknown period of time on an undefined sum which includes the original amount due of £100 plus an added amount simply called "damages" with no explanation or breakdown as to how that sum was reached. However, the maximum correct interest, calculated at the rate of 8% per annum on £100 cannot be for more than £5.98 if the "date issued" was the date the postal PCN was sent, which is disputed.

4. The overcharge of both the amount on the initial PCN and the interest, though seemingly minimal, affects the total amount claimed and raises concerns about the accuracy and good faith of the claimant’s case. This overcharge demonstrates a lack of due diligence in preparing the claim and represents an attempt to improperly inflate the claim amount. The defendant contends that the claimant's overcharge of interest constitutes an abuse of process. By inflating the interest amount, the claimant is misusing the court process to claim more than what is legally and factually justified. This undermines the integrity of the legal process and places an undue burden on the defendant. This is in breach of the following CPRs:

   i.  CPR 1.1 - the overriding objective: The claimant's actions do not promote fairness or proportionality.
   ii. CPR 3.4(2) - Striking Out a Statement of Case: The overcharge amounts to an abuse of the court's process.
   iii. CPR 22.1 - Statements of Truth: The inflated claim is a breach of the requirement for accuracy in statements of truth.

5. There is a further matter negating any cause of action, namely no reference to any 'payment due date' in the POC.  This point relies on Schedule 4 paragraph 9 of the PoFA and the Defendant will raise various issues, including probable non-compliant Notice to Keeper (NtK) wording and an apparently misleading statement in the PoC as there is no way of calculating on what date the payment became due.  This has the object or effect of these pleadings attempting to allege keeper liability wrongfully, and/or earlier than the law would allow. The Claimant's PoC has possibly and unreasonably shortened the statutory 28 day period by several days or even weeks, which has had the additional unreasonable effect of backdating interest incorrectly.  Even if posted 1st class on the same day as the alleged event (which it cannot have been) a NtK would be deemed served two working days later.  Adding the PoFA's statutory 28 days starting with the day after service of the NtK, the soonest that the 'right to recover' might exist could have been several days later than this Claimant fails to state in their PoC. That is, if they are seeking keeper liability under the PoFA at all, which the Court and Defendant are being forced to guess.

The facts as known by the defendant

6. as per the rest of the defence template

smbx

Amounts claimed on N1SDT

Gr1pr

So £188.88 instead of £100 which was probably on the PCN and Signage ( its never more than £100 , but sometimes less. ) 

So £88.88p in spurious extra charges, such as so called damages, or non existent debt collector fees, plus too much interest 

Take those off and the real total is approx £180 , a typical loss in court is around £200 ish

smbx

So, here's what the defence is now. With thanks.:

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').

 

Preliminary Matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Claim should be struck out on the basis that it contravenes Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). PoFA clearly stipulates that a creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued. The original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the claimant was for £100. The claimant's current claim is for £180.88, which exceeds the amount of the unpaid parking charges as stated in the original notice. The Claimant’s attempt to claim an unlawful amount constitutes an abuse of process and should not be allowed to proceed. The Defendant respectfully request the allocating judge to dismiss the claim on the basis of the Claimant’s contravention of Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of PoFA and thereby CPR 1.1, CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) and CPR 27.14 and to award costs to the Defendant for having to defend against this improper claim.

3. Additionally, the Claimant has provided no breakdown as to how they have calculated the interest on the claimed sum. The Defendant understands that the claim made by the Claimant is supported by a statement of truth, asserting the accuracy of the information presented. Providing inaccurate information in such a statement has serious consequences. Upon reviewing the claim, the defendant has identified an overcharge in the interest calculation. The claimant has charged interest at a rate of 8% per over an unknown period of time on an undefined sum which includes the original amount due of £100 plus an added amount simply called "damages" with no explanation or breakdown as to how that sum was reached. However, the maximum correct interest, calculated at the rate of 8% per annum on £100 cannot be for more than £5.98 if the "date issued" was the date the postal PCN was sent, which is disputed.

4. The overcharge of both the amount on the initial PCN and the interest, though seemingly minimal, affects the total amount claimed and raises concerns about the accuracy and good faith of the claimant’s case. This overcharge demonstrates a lack of due diligence in preparing the claim and represents an attempt to improperly inflate the claim amount. The defendant contends that the claimant's overcharge of interest constitutes an abuse of process. By inflating the interest amount, the claimant is misusing the court process to claim more than what is legally and factually justified. This undermines the integrity of the legal process and places an undue burden on the defendant. This is in breach of the following CPRs:

   i.  CPR 1.1 - the overriding objective: The claimant's actions do not promote fairness or proportionality.
   ii. CPR 3.4(2) - Striking Out a Statement of Case: The overcharge amounts to an abuse of the court's process.
   iii. CPR 22.1 - Statements of Truth: The inflated claim is a breach of the requirement for accuracy in statements of truth.

5. There is a further matter negating any cause of action, namely no reference to any 'payment due date' in the POC.  This point relies on Schedule 4 paragraph 9 of the PoFA and the Defendant will raise various issues, including probable non-compliant Notice to Keeper (NtK) wording and an apparently misleading statement in the PoC as there is no way of calculating on what date the payment became due.  This has the object or effect of these pleadings attempting to allege keeper liability wrongfully, and/or earlier than the law would allow. The Claimant's PoC has possibly and unreasonably shortened the statutory 28 day period by several days or even weeks, which has had the additional unreasonable effect of backdating interest incorrectly.  Even if posted 1st class on the same day as the alleged event (which it cannot have been) a NtK would be deemed served two working days later.  Adding the PoFA's statutory 28 days starting with the day after service of the NtK, the soonest that the 'right to recover' might exist could have been several days later than this Claimant fails to state in their PoC. That is, if they are seeking keeper liability under the PoFA at all, which the Court and Defendant are being forced to guess.

The facts as known by the defendant

6. 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.

6.1. 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 shortly after 5pm.

6.2. The defendant was with two young children (inc. one pre-school child).

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

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

6.5. 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.

6.6. 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.

6.7. 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.

6.8 The defendant and the 2 children eventually drove off. 

6.9. 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.

6.10. The defendant received the PCN.

6.11. 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. 

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

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

6.14. 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.

6.15. 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. 

 

7. 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.

8. 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.

smbx

What about photos of the payment on Ringo App made on 26/08/23 as well as the print screen of phone calls to Claimant, and the print of email sent to Claimant? Should they be included in the Defence email to:

<ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk>, please?

Coupon-mad

smbx said:

What about photos of the payment on Ringo App made on 26/08/23 as well as the print screen of phone calls to Claimant, and the print of email sent to Claimant? Should they be included in the Defence email to:

<ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk>, please?

No photos go with a defence.

smbx

I have received a "Notice of proposed allocation to the small claims track" dated 26 July 2024.

Given that it is still very much gobbledygook to me, would you mind telling me what I should put in the top boxes, please?

smbx

I gathered there's no point asking for mediation.
Point C , I'll agree for small claims track.
Point D, suitability for determination without hearing is not an option either. 
Point E, for place of hearing, am I able to request it?
Also I need to send copies of this document to be received by 12th August, to the court office, and the claimant. 
Am I right please?
Can this be done online at all?