Small Claims Court, CCJ N1SDT . Help with Defence for PCN DCBL Legal Parking outside marked bay

januarykitten2020

Please can someone help me respond to this:

I parked at a friends place late one dark winter evening, with a permit. It was cobbled and there were no obvious lines. I received a PCN soon after in the post, but was shocked! I ignored it. The letters stopped. I moved house and then new letters from different companies arrived.
I have just received a Claim Form 

The particulars of claim :
1. The defendant is indebted to the claimant for a parking charge issued to the vehicle at XXXX.
2. The date of contravention is December 2019 and the defendant was issued with a parking charge by the claimant.
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: parked outside a marked bay.
4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, schedule 4. and the claimant claims
1. £170 being the total of the parking charge and damages.
2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the county courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.01 until judgement or sooner payment.
3. Cost and court fees. 

My response so far: 

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim and puts the Claimant to strict proof of the alleged contract and breach.

2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not the driver at the time of the alleged contravention on XXXX Date . The Claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. As such, the Defendant cannot be held liable in law.

3. The Particulars of Claim are vague and fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4. They do not identify the cause of action clearly or provide sufficient information for the Defendant to understand the case to answer. The Defendant reserves the right to request further and better particulars.

4. The location at  XXXX had unclear and inadequately marked parking bays at the material time. The signage was also insufficient to form a binding contract with any driver. Therefore, the terms of any alleged contract were not properly offered, known, or accepted, and no breach can have occurred.

5. The Claimant alleges a contractual breach for “parking outside a marked bay” but provides no evidence of the signage, layout of the site, or the actual parking event. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of:

   • The presence and adequacy of any signage at the site;

   • That the signage met the requirements of the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013;

   • That the driver accepted those terms;

   • That any alleged breach took place;

   • That the Claimant has the authority to issue and enforce parking charges in its own name.

6. The amount of £170 is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. It exceeds the maximum allowed by the Parking Charge Code of Practice and is an abuse of process. The original charge was likely £100 or less. The additional costs, including the invented “damages” and the £70 add-on, are unrecoverable under the small claims track rules and are not supported by any lawful basis.

7. The claim for interest under s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 is denied. The alleged parking charge is not a valid debt and any claim to interest is therefore without foundation.

8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have complied with all statutory and procedural requirements, and that their claim has legal merit.

9. The Defendant respectfully requests that the Court strikes out the claim or dismisses it in its entirety.

januarykitten2020

I have an updated response as I was the driver: 

1. The Defendant denies that they are liable for the entirety of the claim.

2. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle on the date of the alleged contravention, XXX DATE at XXX Place

3. The Claimant asserts that the Defendant parked “outside a marked bay” in breach of terms displayed on signage at the location. However, the Defendant avers that the signage was unclear and the bay markings were either not visible, not maintained, or were ambiguous. Accordingly, no clear contract was formed, and any alleged breach is denied.

4. The signage at the site failed to meet the standards required under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 or the BPA Code of Practice (or IPC if applicable), and did not communicate terms in a clear, transparent or prominent way. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of:

• The presence, location, size, and wording of signage on the date in question;

• That the signage was visible upon entry and at the location where the vehicle was parked;

• That the bay markings were present, clearly visible, and defined such that a contractual term could be breached by the manner of parking.

5. The Defendant further denies that any parking charge is due. Even if the signage had formed a contract (which is denied), any alleged breach such as “not parking inside a bay” amounts to a minor technicality which caused no obstruction, damage, or loss. As such, the imposition of a £100 charge (let alone the inflated £170 claimed) is unconscionable, penal, and unenforceable.

6. The Claimant has artificially inflated the claim to £170 by adding a false debt collection charge or “damages” of £70. This is a known abuse of process and has been struck out in other similar claims. The Defendant refers to Britannia Parking v Crosby (Southampton Court, 2020) and DJ Harvey in G4S v Sibley (2021), where such add-ons were disallowed.

7. The Claimant also seeks interest pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984. As no debt has been proven, the Defendant denies that interest can be applied. Furthermore, no contract specifying interest existed between the parties.

8. The Particulars of Claim are vague and fail to meet CPR 16.4 requirements. The Defendant is prejudiced in being unable to respond more fully without seeing proper particulars of the alleged contract, breach, and chain of authority.

9. The Defendant denies that the Claimant has locus standi to bring this claim in their own name and puts them to strict proof of a valid and contemporaneous landowner contract authorising G24 to issue and enforce parking charges at the location.

10. The Defendant respectfully requests that the Court strike out the claim as an abuse of process, or alternatively, dismiss the claim in full.

Coupon-mad

No, use the Template Defence.

just read the SECOND post of the NEWBIES thread (we will not link it; see my signature for how to hop there in a nanosecond).

Read the SECOND POST OF IT ONLY.

Then do the AOS (explained there with a walkthrough pictorial guide) then use the Template Defence and draft your facts, which slot into paragraph 3.

You will never pay, no CCJ is risked and it probably won't even get as far as a hearing. All very easy and a useful experience in seeing off a 'scam'.

First, please post a photo of the claim form page, but REDACT 

- your name & address & QR Code

- your VRM

- the Claim number (top right)

- the Password (lower right)