Northwest Parking Management / DCB Legal

Hufty200

Sorry all, just want to double check this is correct before I submit! (Thank you and sorry to be overly cautious)

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  XXXXXXX

Between

NORTHWEST PARKING MANAGEMENT LTD

- and -  

XXXXXXXXXX

_________________

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 as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but denies having been the driver, and liability is denied.

3. The location of the alleged parking charge is Hartlepool Marina, a site covered by The Tees and Hartlepool Harbour Byelaws 1977 & 1985 ('the byelaws'). The plan attached to the end of the byelaws shows that the Hartlepool Marina development and thus the site of the car park in the Particulars of Claim ('POC') sits within the boundary to which the byelaws apply. There is no evidence that the byelaws or the boundary at this location have changed since the 1985 revision and there is no evidence they have been repealed. In any case the onus is on the private parking company or the landowner to show that the byelaws no longer apply. Among other things the byelaws cover, in Part VII - Vehicles, vehicular activity within the boundary and failing to pay for parking is not a byelaws offence. The byelaws are given statutory force by The Tees and Hartlepools [sic] Port Authority Act 1966. As a result, the location is not “relevant land” as defined by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA'), which states: 

3.1 In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than— 

(a) a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);

(b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;

(c) any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.

The keeper of the vehicle is therefore not liable. 

3.2 The driver does not recollect what signs were visible but subsequent research into the site shows that the car park tariff was "Under 15 mins – Free, No ticket required". The Defendant has seen no evidence that the free parking time was in fact breached, nor where the car was parked in relation to any sign, nor that any payment methods were working. No Parking Charge Notice ('PCN') was affixed to the vehicle at the time.

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 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.

1505grandad

Just checking with the experts  -  in view of facts stated in the op is it ok to include the following "specific" under a SoT:-

"2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but denies having been the driver, and liability is denied."

Coupon-mad

Nobody told you to DENY driving.

You don't lie in a court case.

Hufty200

Thanks all. So, just by removing paragraph 2 and amending the numbering - it's good to go?

Coupon-mad

Why now plan on removing the whole of paragraph 2? That wasn't advised either.

Hufty200

Ok, 3rd time lucky... Glad I checked..

Thanks to you for your patience - it's much appreciated.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  XXXXXX

Between

NORTHWEST PARKING MANAGEMENT LTD

- and -  

XXXXXX

_________________

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 as 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.

3. The location of the alleged parking charge is Hartlepool Marina, a site covered by The Tees and Hartlepool Harbour Byelaws 1977 & 1985 ('the byelaws'). The plan attached to the end of the byelaws shows that the Hartlepool Marina development and thus the site of the car park in the Particulars of Claim ('POC') sits within the boundary to which the byelaws apply. There is no evidence that the byelaws or the boundary at this location have changed since the 1985 revision and there is no evidence they have been repealed. In any case the onus is on the private parking company or the landowner to show that the byelaws no longer apply. Among other things the byelaws cover, in Part VII - Vehicles, vehicular activity within the boundary and failing to pay for parking is not a byelaws offence. The byelaws are given statutory force by The Tees and Hartlepools [sic] Port Authority Act 1966. As a result, the location is not “relevant land” as defined by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA'), which states: 

3.1 In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than— 

(a) a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);

(b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;

(c) any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.

The keeper of the vehicle is therefore not liable. 

3.2 The driver does not recollect what signs were visible but subsequent research into the site shows that the car park tariff was "Under 15 mins – Free, No ticket required". The Defendant has seen no evidence that the free parking time was in fact breached, nor where the car was parked in relation to any sign, nor that any payment methods were working. No Parking Charge Notice ('PCN') was affixed to the vehicle at the time.

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 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.

Coupon-mad

That's now fine but please remove from the reply above (BUT NOT FROM YOUR OWN DOCUMENT), para 7 till the end because it clutters your thread and - as you can imagine - we NEVER want to see our Template Defence in full (thanks!).
Drives us mad... 

Hufty200

Thank you very much Coupon-Mad and sorry for spamming.. I really appreciate the response (and your patience!).

I'll now get this sorted finally.

Hufty200

I still haven't received any response from this yet...

I received an auto response from the initial email which said I'd expect a response within 10-days. 
Am I being too impatient or do I need to follow up?

Gr1pr

Too impatient,  the process can take weeks or more 

Plus it's too early for you to get anything else after the auto response 

You can login to MCOL and check your claim history for where your case is up to, like checking a bank account 

I suspect that it could be sometime next month before you get the N180 postal letter

You need to check the 12 steps in the defence template thread to see where you are located on it