Received Claim Form but not a PCN

Gr1pr

Don't over explain at this early stage, keep it concise and to the point 

Only post the early paragraphs on here, the ones that you alter, not the rest of the template defence which remains unaltered.  When your final draft is approved, slot the rest under it and renumber accordingly 

Over explaining can be done in your witness statement in several months time 

LDast

Throw the book at them for abuse of process for incorrect interest calculation and for applying the interest to not only the original PCN amount of £100 but also on their fake £70 "damages".

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.

As the claim should only be for the amount of £100 as stated on the original PCN, the interest calculated should only be on that amount. By also calculating interest on the added £70 "damages" which are, in themselves, an abuse of process, the claimant has not only acted unreasonably but also abused the courts process and breached the following CPRs:

CPR Breaches and Abuse of Process:

• CPR 1.1 - The Overriding Objective:

• The claim is not being dealt with justly or proportionately. The excessive amount claimed puts the defendant at a disadvantage, increases unnecessary costs, and is disproportionate to the original charge.

• CPR 3.4 - Power to Strike Out:

• CPR 3.4(2)(a): The claim for £160 has no reasonable grounds, as it exceeds the lawful amount stipulated by PoFA 4(5).

• CPR 3.4(2)(b): The claim represents an abuse of the court’s process by attempting to claim an amount not legally recoverable, thus obstructing the just disposal of proceedings.

• CPR 27.14 - Costs on the Small Claims Track:

• CPR 27.14(2)(g): The claimant’s behavior in pursuing an excessive and unlawful amount is unreasonable, warranting the claim to be struck out and costs awarded to the defendant.

tiger_stripes

Here is a first draft. Is this too vague?

"  3. The defendant admits to parking in the car park and on the date stated in the POC, to attend work. The defendant purchased a parking ticket for the vehicle stated.
[Shall I enter the car park details, the date and my reg?]
4. To be able to park for the required number of hours, the defendant paid for a ticket which allowed parking for 12 hours. The defendant exited the car park after 9 hours.
The defendant is still in possession of said paid ticket [should I add 'which clearly shows the correct vehicle reg, time paid for and date.' ? ]
5. The defendant denies receiving any PCN(s). [Is this sentence ok or do I need to word it differently?]  "


In the POC it says Failure to purchase ticket AND/OR WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED. Do I need to look at their signage to be sure of the maximum time to purchase a ticket and comment on that? Or should i not mention that because I don't know which they are claiming for - unpaid ticket OR within the time allowed. I don't know which one they are claiming for because I didn't receive the PCN they said they issued.
I don't want to complicate or hurt my defence by including something that is not needed or something that will favour the claimant.

Thank you 

Coupon-mad

3.  It is denied that the Claimant can pursue the registered keeper pursuant to the POFA 2012 because this Claimant's consumer notices fail to comply with Schedule 4 and the sum pursued exceeds the 'maximum sum' that Act sets.

3.1. 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).

3.2.  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.

3.3.  As the claim (fully disputed in any event) should only be for the amount of £100 as stated on the original PCN, the interest calculated should only be on that amount. By also calculating interest on the added £70 "damages" which are, in themselves, an abuse of process, the claimant has not only acted unreasonably but also abused the courts process and breached the following CPRs:

CPR Breaches and Abuse of Process:

• CPR 1.1 - The Overriding Objective:

• The claim is not being dealt with justly or proportionately. The excessive amount claimed puts the defendant at a disadvantage, increases unnecessary costs, and is disproportionate to the original charge.

• CPR 3.4 - Power to Strike Out:

• CPR 3.4(2)(a): The claim for £170 has no reasonable grounds, as it exceeds the lawful amount stipulated by PoFA 4(5).

• CPR 3.4(2)(b): The claim represents an abuse of the court’s process by attempting to claim an amount not legally recoverable, thus obstructing the just disposal of proceedings.

• CPR 27.14 - Costs on the Small Claims Track:

• CPR 27.14(2)(g): The claimant’s behaviour in pursuing an excessive and unlawful amount is unreasonable, warranting the claim to be struck out (and costs awarded to the Defendant, if incurred).

4.  it is further denied that any breach of any (prominently advertised) term occurred and the Claimant is put to strict proof. The allegation is incoherent, to say the least. The Claim fails to unambiguously specify the alleged breach and relies instead on a wholly inappropriate phrase for POC: 'either/or'.  

4.1.  No sum of money relating to the parking tariff is specified in the POC but the Claimant knows that there are no parking charges outstanding. This relates to an unremarkable date in 2023 (regarding a car park used daily around that time).  The Defendant - and the court - is unable to understand whether the allegation is 'failure to pay (at all)'? Or maybe it is alleging: 'failure to pay in full'? Perhaps: 'failure to pay for the correct VRM (a keypad error)'?  Could it be 'failure to display a ticket'? Or is it the "either/or" alternative: 'failure to pay in time' (no time has been specified). All are denied.

5.  The Defendant knows and will say and can evidence that they paid for their parking on this date, as they did every time they visited this site.  The operator obtained the payment it sought for the hours parked; there was no loss and this inflated charge is an unrecoverable penalty.


No legitimate interest (the ParkingEye v Beavis case is fully distinguished)

6.  There is no legitimate interest in pursuing a Defendant who paid in full, and this Claimant knows this full well. Last week in a judgment dated 10th June 2024, His Honour Judge Pema (sitting at the County Court at Bradford) refused Excel Parking Services Ltd's attempt to appeal the decision in Case no K4QZ4Y21 which the Defendant had won in similar circumstances to the extant claim, which involves the same Claimant:




6.
Rest of Template Defence (para 4 onwards)  re-numbered follows... 

1505grandad

"CPR 3.4(2)(a): The claim for £160 has no reasonable grounds, as it exceeds the lawful amount stipulated by PoFA 4(5)."

I believe the claim form on page 1 shows £170?

tiger_stripes

That is amazing! Thank you so much C-M !!!

LDast

As a matter of interest, what was the date of the alleged breach of contract, the date the driver parked? In the PoC it states that the PCN was "issued" on 01/11/2023. Was that the date of the parking incident or the date that they "issued" or sent the PCN?

tiger_stripes

LDast said:

As a matter of interest, what was the date of the alleged breach of contract, the date the driver parked? In the PoC it states that the PCN was "issued" on 01/11/2023. Was that the date of the parking incident or the date that they "issued" or sent the PCN?

That is something else they haven't specified then isn't it? Because I didn't receive a PCN I'm unsure of the date of the alleged breach then. I know I parked on the 01/11/2023 so I assumed it was this date they are referring to.

Coupon-mad

No worries.

Probably nothing to add now except the rest of the hharry100 wording (linked in the Template Defence) with the Chan images first, then the bit I wrote, then the re-numbered template defence para 4 onwards, right to the end. Sign & date it electronically and save as a PDF to email.

LDast

Just another point that can be put in the Preliminary Matters for the allocating judge to strike the claim out. If the "issue" date of the PCN is the date of the alleged breach of contract, on what date was the actual invoice issued as any interest calculated must be from 28 days after that invoice date, which is unknown. The invoice could have been issued a day after or any time up to seven months after.