PCN private driveway - motorbike - now County Court claim

Lilemarc

Hello everyone,
I recently received a small courts claim for unpaid PCN and I'm working on my defense. I'm hoping someone here may be able to help,

Summary of facts:
- When I moved as a tenant to my current property, I was told by the agent that neighbours could park in the private road driveway with no issues.
- In summer 2023, I got a motorbike and parked it there. There's no marked or individual bays as it's just a road to access some garages, I didn't even occupy any of the spaces where cars usually park, as it's a small bike. 
- I received the first PCN from London Parking Solutions in Sep/ Oct 2023, to my surprise. I noticed a parking sign (although difficult to read) in the driveway, like this:



- I contacted my landlord and the block management for information on parking permits as it was news to me. They sent me to the parking company, London Parking Solutions. They told me by email that a free permit was issued to every flat. I had to pay for a replacement permit (my landlord didn't know where the original permit was).
- The problem is that this permit is a big hard plastic one, great for a car windscreen but impossible to attach to a motorbike. I tried and bought an attacher, but the permit didn't fit and risked being easily lost or stolen. I made the parking company aware of this and asked for any solutions. I wasn't given any.
- During 2023 and 2024, I continued to receive PCNs for "no valid permit on display". Also, I've received 30+ debt collector threatening letters to date.

Now, I received a CNBC claim for over £880 (4 PCNs), including court fee (£70) and legal representative's costs (£70). It says "... for failing to display a valid permit. The terms and conditions to which the defendant agreed to be bound by using the site were clearly displayed in prominent places throughout the site".

I've already submitted an acknowledgment of service to get more time. Any ideas or suggestions are very welcome, this is quite stressing to me to be honest, as I acted in good will and feel I was given no alternative options.

Thanks so much!

Car1980

You can't display a permit in your windscreen because you haven't got one. The onus is on them to provide a permit that enables compliance with their own contractual terms.

See about unfair terms in the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Coupon-mad

The term requiring permit display is void for impossibility for motorbikes. Just use the template defence like everyone does.

Show us the POC.

Lilemarc

Thanks for the responses so far

The PCN is this (there are other 3 but all the same except the date):

Coupon-mad

Lilemarc said:

Thanks for the responses so far

The PCN is this (there are other 3 but all the same except the date):

I asked for the POC not the NTK but - thanks, as I didn't yet have one from them on this thread:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6483542/a-thread-of-pictures-of-parking-firm-ntks/p1

And the POC please.

Lilemarc

Here is the PoC, sorry:



And this is the back of that NTK:

Coupon-mad

Lilemarc said:

Here is the PoC, sorry:

Interesting. I can't work out which solicitor firm wrote that POC. Which firm?

They are trying to charge interest on all 4 PCNs and fake DRA 'fees' at 8% calculated from a date in 2023 almost a YEAR BEFORE the last two PCNs even happened!

Car1980

Sign is terrible. No hierarchy of information. Majority of type is too small.

Lilemarc

Coupon-mad said:

Lilemarc said:

Here is the PoC, sorry:

Interesting. I can't work out which solicitor firm wrote that POC. Which firm?

They are trying to charge interest on all 4 PCNs and fake DRA 'fees' at 8% calculated from a date in 2023 almost a YEAR BEFORE the last two PCNs even happened!

The solicitor firm is CSB Solicitors Limited (debt collectors UCS and DCBL)

Coupon-mad

Oooh new kids on the block, from Chiswick?

https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/csblaw.co.uk

That Trustpilot review is likely to plummet now. If you lie with dogs, expect fleas, CSB Solicitors. Oh dear.

Coupon-mad

Lilemarc said:

Here is the PoC:

I'd suggest you could respond by using this bespoke version of defence: 

                               Defence

 

1.  The Defendant (hereafter ‘D’) denies that the Claimant (hereafter ‘C’) is entitled to relief in the inflated sum claimed, or at all. C is put to strict proof of keeper or driver liability and every other aspect of the claim, including - but not limited to - calculation of the quantum and interest, their full compliance with all applicable laws and Code of Practice (CoP) and the existence of a prominent contract with terms that were fair and capable of applying to motorbikes.

2.  D is a tenant at the location in question and it is disputed that C's purported terms were clear, fair or capable of creating a contract in all the circumstances and/or that the hidden positioning of the sign on a wall complied with the industry CoP.

3.  Having purchased a small motorcycle and parked courteously at their own home over the Summer, D was shocked to receive 'parking charge notices' ('PCNs') posted by C out of the blue in Autumn 2023. There were no marked bays and no signs had been seen at all. D contacted their landlord and the block management for information on parking permits as it was news to D, who also searched the overgrown garage driveway area for supposed 't&cs' and finally spotted an unremarkable sign on a fence.

4.  For the two 2023 PCNs listed on the POC, locating the non-prominent terms afterwards came too late. There was no contractual agreement or meeting of minds beforehand and the consumer notices (signage and letters) that followed were inadequate, unfair and lacked timeliness. D is not liable for any sum in relation to those PCNs.

5.  By the time of the 2024 PCNs listed on the POC, D had made all possible endeavours to comply with the term to display the physical 'permit' for which D had paid C. This permit was not fit for purpose, being a big hard plastic one designed for a car windscreen but impossible to attach to a motorbike. D tried hard and even bought a permit attacher, but the permit didn't fit and risked being easily lost or stolen. In Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 –EGLR -154, it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach when unable to fully comply with the terms.

6.  D's conduct was more than reasonable. By contrast, C's response fell very short of what an average resident might expect from a professional parking operator running a business at D's own home estate. C was put on notice in 2023 that D was a tenant with a permit, not a trespasser, and C knew that this particular term was impossible in relation to the bike. D repeatedly engaged and asked for help to ensure that the motorcycle was exempted. No solution was forthcoming. C could have very easily added the motorcycle to a known authorised residents' electronic permit 'white list'. This is normal in this sector; using standard industry software any Approved Operator can use electronic whitelists in order to exempt 'permitted' vehicles from penalties. Instead, C persisted with more unfair PCNs for which D denies liability.

7.  D avers that Cs action (and inaction in failing to provide a workable solution) were misleading omissions/actions which caused a frustration of contract. D is not liable for any sum in relation to the 2024 PCNs nor in respect of any others which may arise due to the same disingenuous and bad faith conduct by C which frustrated that element of the contract.

8.  D avers that the signs/terms were unfair, impossible to comply with (which C indisputably knew) and thus the terms and consumer notices were in breach of the laws relating to unfair or misleading terms, including the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (which replaced the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977) and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs). Both prohibit unfair practices and misleading actions/omissions by traders when dealing with consumers.

9.  Responding to the Particulars of Claim ('the POC'): it is disputed that D is in any way indebted to C either by way of ‘parking charges’ or in any other form. It is denied that there were 'contractually agreed sums' by which D 'agreed to be bound' and denied that any parking charge notices were issued 'to the vehicle' on the specified dates.

10.  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. That is to say; it is disputed that a contract existed between the Landowner and C that would empower C to issue parking charges and pursue debts by way of court claims in their own name. C is put to strict proof. Even if they respond to that issue, it is denied that the terms were 'clearly displayed in prominent places throughout the site' with the area in question not being a car park but a garage approach with no marked bays nor obvious signs of parking management.

11. Re the quantum: it is further denied that 'recovery costs' x 4 were either incurred or quantified in the t&cs as claimed in the POC. It is D's position that £280 has been added to the (denied) PCN sums unlawfully. Being 'allowed' by their own self-serving IPC CoP is no justification for the unjust enrichment of this well-known false enhancement, aimed to reward C and/or their law firm far in excess of the capped 'legal fees' intended by the MoJ for moneyclaims. C has inflated this claim well above the level for HCEO enforcement, had D been unfortunate enough to be inflicted with a default judgment which is by far the most common result deliberately or negligently achieved from private parking claims. And this C and their legal representatives file these claims in bulk batches, so other inflated claims would have hit the target and wrongfully enriched these two firms.

11.1.  To add insult to injury, the POC seek interest on the whole imaginary £680 backdated to 2023, which was almost a year before the two 2024 parking events even occurred. The date given for interest to begin was in fact before any of the PCNs had even been posted to D! Had C succeeded in achieving the default CCJ that members of this industry appear to deliberately seek in order to maximise the money and intimidation, the sum sought by bailiffs knocking on D's door would have been already wrongfully enhanced by over a third, even before HCEO fees.

11.2.  D avers that for a C and their usually respectable Chiswick-based solicitors to inflate a claim with false 'fees/costs' (not quantified on the sign, never incurred and described by the Government in 2022 as 'extorting money from motorists') and for the legal representative who signed the claim form to then apply improperly calculated interest on the whole alleged 'debt' starting from a date before ANY of the four PCNs had even been served (let alone deemed 'overdue', with three out four of the matters not even having happened on 27/8/2023) is reason in itself for the court to immediately strike out those aspects of the claim, or indeed the entire claim.

12. vvv

Now copy the Template Defence from para 4 onwards - all of it - renumbered instead, as 12 onwards.

Go through it and change all mentions of Claimant and Defendant to capital C & D so the defence makes sense.