Defence for PCN

smbx · 27 June 2024 at 11:52AM

Is this Defence any good, please?
I only have today to work on it. Needs to be emailed asap.

Image: https://us-noi.v-cdn.net/6031891/uploads/editor/f5/757lbxk0dtx1.png

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.

<...>