N180 DQ Query - PCN Restaurant Related

eliza2811

Gr1pr said:

Then your deadline is 28th July at 4pm, so wait for the updated template defence and guidance by coupon mad this week 

Will do. Thanks 

Coupon-mad

eliza2811 said:

Gr1pr said:

Then your deadline is 28th July at 4pm, so wait for the updated template defence and guidance by coupon mad this week 

Will do. Thanks 

Yep I will do the new template defence this week - shorter - as I'm about to go on holiday & am aware it is needed. 

eliza2811

Coupon-mad said:

eliza2811 said:

Gr1pr said:

Then your deadline is 28th July at 4pm, so wait for the updated template defence and guidance by coupon mad this week 

Will do. Thanks 

Yep I will do the new template defence this week - shorter - as I'm about to go on holiday & am aware it is needed. 

Thanks for your help. 

eliza2811

Another go at a Court Defence...using the shorter template.  Personal details have been removed. They will added into the final version. Please can someone take a look for me. Thanks.

Defendant DEFENCE:

1.  The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable to understand with certainty the allegation or the heads of cost. The Defendant denies liability for the inflated sum claimed, or at all.

2.  It is difficult to respond but these facts come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To form a contract, there must be a prominent offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration. It is neither admitted nor denied that the driver breached any term. Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘the CRA’) creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness. The CRA introduced new requirements for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Sch2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith, the Defendant avers that this Claimant generally uses unclear and unfair terms/notices. On the limited information available, this case appears to be no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs and the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided. However, the court is invited to strike this claim out using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

3. The Claimant, Civil Enforcement Ltd has issued a court claim form in which the Particulars of Claim (PoC) refer to a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 15/04/2024 for an alleged breach on 25/02/2024. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at that time. On 25/02/2024, the driver and passenger visited the Pear Tree Inn as genuine customers for a curry/drink. (Pear Tree Inn is a pub/restaurant and NOT a hotel). **** *** was parked up in the car park therefore. It is not understood from the PoC, as to why a PCN was issued nearly 6 weeks after the driver and passenger visited the Pear Tree Inn and why it was issued in the first place. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the PoC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5.

4. DVLA registered keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written agreement from the landowner. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to sue under a landowner contract and the terms/scope and dates/details of the parking management service, including the contract itself, all updates and schedules and a map of the site boundary as set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps mock-up).

5.  In order to impose a parking charge, as well as proving that the driver breached an obligation, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' of any relevant obligation(s) and of the charge itself. None of these requirements have been demonstrated and this charge is a penalty. ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 is fully distinguished. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis and also to ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) a finding unaffected by Beavis. In Somerfield, HHJ Hegarty (whose decision was ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs' further inflating a £75 (discounted to £37.50) parking charge to £135 was disproportionate to the minor cost of template letters and 'would appear to be penal'.

6. On 11th July 2025 a Public Consultation by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (‘MHCLG’) began. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 will finally curb the unjust enrichment of the parking industry and debt recovery agents (DRAs). Banning DRA fees (mirroring the approach of the last Government, which called DRA fees ‘extorting money from motorists’) appears likely. The MHCLG have identified that the added sums are not part of the parking related charges: “profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than the profits reported by parking operators” and “the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure”.

7. The claim exceeds the current Code of Practice £100 maximum parking charge without justification or explanation. Pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') it also exceeds the ‘maximum sum’ recoverable; the explanatory notes to s4 (5) and (6) state at para 221: ‘’The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5)).’’

8.  The Claimant is put to proof of POFA and Code of Practice compliance. It is denied that any DRA sums are due, nor interest (the delay lies with the Claimant and interest should be disallowed).

9.  The delay in litigation has made retrieving material documents/evidence impossible for the Defendant, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks standard witness costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct by the Claimant, opening up further costs (CPR 46.5).

10. The court’s attention is drawn to the common outcome in bulk parking claims, of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst a Claimant is liable for a Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply 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))." 

Coupon-mad

If the POC do not state the breach, put this bit as para 3 on its own, then your facts after that as 4 - stating that you were the passenger not the driver, IF THAT IS TRUE (then renumber the template):

Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the PoC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5.

Show us the whole POC. The pic you showed us earlier has cut some of it off.

eliza2811

Coupon-mad said:

If the POC do not state the breach, put this bit as para 3 on its own, then your facts after that as 4 - stating that you were the passenger not the driver, IF THAT IS TRUE (then renumber the template):

Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the PoC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5.

Show us the whole POC. The pic you showed us cut d'some of it off.

Thanks for the reply back Coupon-mad. The POC is on page 2.  The only bit that the post it note covers at bottom, is just the PCN number, car reg and The Pear Tree Inn.  Then total due £170.  Then Claimant claims the sum of £188.03  for the unpaid parking charge inc. £18.03 interest under S.69 of the CCA 1984.  Rate: 8.00% pa from due date to 23/06/2025. Same rate to Judgement or sooner payment at daily rate of £0.04. Total debt and interest due - £188.03.

My scanner has decided not to work today :-(

eliza2811

I should say that I personally am the passenger but doing it from the keeper's point of view.  So he'll be going to court and not me. He's rubbish with any computer !

Umkomaas

eliza2811 said:

I should say that I personally am the passenger but doing it from the keeper's point of view.  So he'll be going to court and not me. He's rubbish with any computer !

In whose name is the court claim?

eliza2811

Umkomaas said:

eliza2811 said:

I should say that I personally am the passenger but doing it from the keeper's point of view.  So he'll be going to court and not me. He's rubbish with any computer !

In whose name is the court claim?

Keepers name. Actually my hubby 🙄

eliza2811

eliza2811 said:

Coupon-mad said:

If the POC do not state the breach, put this bit as para 3 on its own, then your facts after that as 4 - stating that you were the passenger not the driver, IF THAT IS TRUE (then renumber the template):

Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the PoC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5.

Show us the whole POC. The pic you showed us cut d'some of it off.

Thanks for the reply back Coupon-mad. The POC is on page 2.  The only bit that the post it note covers at bottom, is just the PCN number, car reg and The Pear Tree Inn.  Then total due £170.  Then Claimant claims the sum of £188.03  for the unpaid parking charge inc. £18.03 interest under S.69 of the CCA 1984.  Rate: 8.00% pa from due date to 23/06/2025. Same rate to Judgement or sooner payment at daily rate of £0.04. Total debt and interest due - £188.03.

My scanner has decided not to work today :-(

I'm still not clear if my POC does show a breach or not? Bearing in mind, no overstay, no machines in car park, no parking out of bays involved 🤔 cheers