Received a claim form for parking at work parking space

always_ontime

Hello and thank you to all the brilliant guys who help others on this website. I have received a claim form from Northampton on 3 Oct and the AoS was sent the next day. The claimant is National Parking Management LTD and Gladstones is their representative. I have read many threads on the website and found one which is very similar to mine however as it is a few years old I am wondering if I can still amend and use it so any advice to amend (remove or add) would be highly appreciated.

Background:

I work at this place, so I am a permit holder and use this parking every day. On 14/12/2023 for some reason the permit fell down and after work I found a ticket on the windshield. Next day I sent my permit along with an explanation to NPM asking to cancel the ticket but it was rejected. They offered IAS and I accepted (it was wrong, but I didn’t know at the time). The refusal email I received from IAS was full of spelling mistakes and the registration numbers mentioned was not even mine! So I asked for an independent service which was ignored. After that I ignored all the correspondence till I received the claim form and I am preparing my defence now.

Particulars of claim:

The driver of the vehicle with registration xxxxx parked in breach of the terms and conditions stipulated on the signage (the contract) at xxxxx on 14/12/2023 thus incurring the parking charge (the PCN). The PCN was not paid within 28 days of issue. The claimant claims the unpaid PCN from the defendant as driver/keeper of the vehicle…..

Claimant Claims: £100 for the PCN, £70 contractual costs pursuant to the contract and PCN terms and conditions together with statutory interest of £9.59 pursuant to s69 of the county courts Act 1984 at 8% per annum continuing at £0.04 per day.

 

Claim Number: xxxxxxxx

National Parking Management Limited

V

Xxxxx

Statement of Defence

I am ******* the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle *****. My address for service is ****.

As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I seek the Court's permission to amend and supplement this defence as may be required upon disclosure of the Claimant's case.

As specifically admitted in this defence the Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim.

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

 

1.           The Particulars of Claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5

 

1.1        The claim particulars fail to specify how the terms of parking were breached and fail to fulfil CPR Part 16.4 by not including a statement of the facts on which the Claimant relies, only referring to “parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage” with no further description; it fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. Therefore, the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR Part 16.4 1(a).

1.2         The claim particulars fail to specify in what capacity the Claimant makes a claim against the Defendant; as driver or keeper or both, referring to the Defendant ambiguously as the driver/keeper.

2.           The Claimant and their solicitor are known to be serial litigants and issuers of speculative claims, using “template” particulars of claim, with no due diligence.

2.1         In C3GF84Y2 (Mason, Plymouth County Court) [2016] the judge struck out the claim brought by KBT Cornwall Ltd as Gladstones Solicitors had not submitted proper Particulars of Claim, and similar reasons were cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

3.           The defendant is a teacher of a registered business at this location. Entry into the car parking area is by means of a four-digit pass code entered in a number lock which opens a large electric gate; the pass code is only issued to permit holders. Any vehicles parked therein are therefore, de facto authorised to be there. Nonetheless, the permit was displayed at the time of the alleged breach however the defendant has no knowledge of the point at which the ticket moved or why. The next day, in an email, the defendant provided the Claimant with the permit along with an explanation as a good faith and made all reasonable endeavours to comply with the terms and conditions as far as they were understood.

4.           This was an opportunity for the Claimant to act reasonably and cancel the charge which was dismissed.

5.           The Defendant requests the court strike out the claim for want of a cause of action and disregard of pre-court protocol.

6.           Alternatively, the Defendant asks that court makes an order requiring the Claimant to file compliant Particulars to include at least the following:

a) An explanation as to the exact nature of the charge.

b) A copy of any contract it is alleged was entered into and how.

c) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with           documents they rely on in having standing to bring this claim.

d) The basis on which charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed and calculated.

 

7.           The Defendant cannot be responsible for the possibility that a gust of wind may have later moved the permit from sight, despite the windows and doors being locked.

 

8.           Falling of the permit, due to any reason or factor, is not within a driver's control (the Defendant was by that time, absent from the location) and it is evident that another factor outside anyone's control – was to blame. This appears to have been a case of casus fortuitus "chance occurrence, unavoidable accident", which is a doctrine that essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties renders the issue.

 

8.1        As far as the defendant is aware, the National Parking Management LTD has an E-Permit in action in this parking. To avoid any future issues, the Defendant asked the Claimant to enter the vehicle’s registration number into their database which was simply ignored by the Claimant.

8.2        Notwithstanding the above and the fact that the defendant is a permit holder it seems that the Claimant profits from drivers' misfortune.

 

9.           National Parking Management LTD are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring this case.

 

9.1        The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract. Therefore, the Claimant suffers no loss whatsoever because of a vehicle parking at the location in question.

 

9.2        The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third-party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge. The defendant who is a permit holder has never been informed by landowner or employer that the Claimant has the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name. They have no right to bring action regarding this claim.

 

10.        The Claimant is under a duty to mitigate its loss. It failed to do so by ignoring the information available from the Defendant having provided a valid permit that would have enabled it to establish that the Defendant was parked legitimately.

 

11.        The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 as per the PCN issued on 14/12/2023 to £179.59. This appears to be an added cost with no apparent qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

 

12.        The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper which the Defendant never received.

 

13.        No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs.

 

14.        The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £70 contractual costs to pursue an alleged £100 charge. CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

 

15.        The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established. The Defendant denies they would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

 

The Defendant therefore asks that the court orders the case to be struck out for want of a detailed course of action and/or for the claim as having no prospect of success.

 

I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.

 

 

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

You say you received the claim form on 3rd October, but what is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that

Can you please show us a picture of the Particulars of Claim - with all personal detail hidden of course.
From what you have shown us, those Particulars are woefully inadequate. They make no mention at all of what mistakes the driver might have made and there are now more powerful arguments against poor particulars than those that were available in 2015.

As you say, that Defence you have shown us is rather old. The template Defence thread might be a better starting point.

Fruitcake

What did your employer say when you complained? Did you complain to your MP as well?

Coupon-mad

The above is not a defence that we recognise. Use the one linked in paragraph 3 of the Template Defence itself; the one for cases where the breach is not specified in the POC.

always_ontime

Hello KeithP and thanks for coming back to me. The date on the claim form is 3rd October. I did the AoS on 4th but I will check again tonight on their website. I will also post a picture of the claim tonight.

always_ontime

Hi Fruitcake. The employer says talk to the landlord but nobody knows who the landlord is as it is a very large building with many businesses there. I tried but the last answer was that he has been retired 9 months ago and does bot come here anymore. I might need to go further into this. I haven't complained to the MP yet.

always_ontime

Hi Coupon-mad. I have the template defence I will need to study further into this and come up with a new one I guess.

fisherjim

But what about Fruitcake's question? That should have been your first action and could have nipped this in the bud at the start?

Why didn't you make it difficult for the IAS sending out someone elses information?

What "independent service" did you expect scammers to give you next?

You say you never entered into any contract, yet you have a permit and park there every day, that's a bit contradictory!

Fruitcake

Regular poster @Umkomaas has provided this to help posters identify a landowner.

SOME IDEAS ON DETERMINING WHO OWNS THE LAND: 

1. Google searches

2. If a retail park, check on any signage which lists the on-site outlets

3. Ask retailers on the site if there is a managing agent

4. Ask retailers on the site to whom do they pay rent

5. Contact the local authority and ask who pays the non-domestic/business rate for the car park (some councils have a spreadsheet on their website)

6. Contact the local Valuation Office and ask if they know. They often have a website which might provide the information 

7. Contact The Land Registry and for around £3 they should be able to provide definitive detail

8. If you haven't already done so, give us the name of the car park/site/location, we may have seen other cases there. 

Coupon-mad

They offered IAS and I accepted (it was wrong, but I didn’t know at the time). The refusal email I received from IAS was full of spelling mistakes and the registration numbers mentioned was not even mine! So I asked for an independent service which was ignored.

Please could you show us that (minus the VRMs)

always_ontime

Hi Fisherjim. My employer is useless. They don't know who they pay the rent to! or maybe they don't want the hassle anyways they are not helping. Can I really send IAS wrong info?! their refusal email was really not understandable due to many spelling mistakes and wrong registration numbers, in a later email they corrected them (after my complaint) and sent a new one. I really did not know about the IAS scam otherwise I would not have gone for it. Yes I don't have a contract, the parking permit was left at the reception one day. I don't even know who brought it. the girl in the reception said I needed to put it on my car from then on. I hope this helps.