CCJ from Parkingeye. Claim form not received as driver resides abroad. Can I set aside?

Whiteorchid

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81951241#Comment_81951241

I was also going to add this, but feel I am submitting too much detail?

a. The defendant made all reasonable efforts to make payment for parking using the approved payment option on site and by following the signage in the car park.

b. The claimant did not provide a working payment facility. Payment relied on downloading an App and relied on phone/network coverage. The claimant did not provide network coverage within the underground carpark, nor was any coverage to be found until some distance away from the building.

c. The defendant was the carer of an elderly disabled passenger and the only pedestrian exit available was via several flights of stairs, which took extra time.

d. The defendant made a payment at the earliest opportunity of £2.20 for a two hour stay. The app displayed a countdown screen showing the time the payment expired. The defendant left before the time expired.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81950400#Comment_81950400

You need this too. As I already said above: search the forum for what I said and then look in those search results for a ParkingEye defence with that £25 wording in.

And you should add that one of the reasons that POPLA is being replaced this year - as part of the MHCLG's wider regulatory regime coming in with the statutory Code of Practice this Autumn - is that both appeals services are self-serving and non-impartial, with POPLA particularly criticised for (illegally) refusing to consider the Equality Act 2010.

And remove this because there's nothing wrong with those particulars:

"The defendant invites the court to strike out or dismiss the claim under the rule 3.4 (2) (a) of Practice direction 3A as having not set out a concise statement of the nature of the claim or disclosing reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing the claim. District Judge Cross of St. Albans County Court on 20/09/06 struck out a claim due to their ‘Robo claim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR 16.4 and ‘providing no facts’."

You must also add the usual case identifying headers at the top and a statement of truth and signature & date at the bottom.

Whiteorchid

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81951358#Comment_81951358

Great thank you, I found something very useful from one of your other replies on the site. I plan to replace para 7 of the template with this version? … my defence is getting longer and longer 🤔

It is apparent from the high amount of the CCJ (£210) that the Claimant has added £25 to enhance their claim.  This sum was neither incurred as damages, nor as a valid fee, and nor was it part of any agreed contract. The signs at this car park are sporadically placed inside with no signs at the entrance. But any PCN sum here is £100. The £125 charge imposed is exaggerated and it is an unjustified penalty. The Defendant takes the point that enhancing their claim on either impermissible sums or on an incorrect basis is reason enough to disallow the claim.  The added £25 is plucked out of thin air and must fail for these reasons:

i)  The added £25 does not appear in the contract (the signs) and

ii)  in view of the binding decision at the High Court (later appealed but the HC decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal) in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB):

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff76260d03e7f57eabf43

The Defendant's position is that this claim is in part/wholly a penalty, applying the authority in ParkingEye cases (ref: paras 98, 100,193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and with specific reliance upon para 419 of HHJ Hegarty's decision in Somerfield, which is unaffected by Beavis. In the former case, the parking charge was set at £75 (discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment) then increased ultimately to £135. At para 419, HHJ Hegarty (sitting as a HCJ) found that adding £60 to an already increased parking charge 'would appear to be penal' and unrecoverable. ParkingEye had dropped this punitive enhancement by the time of Mr Beavis' infamous Supreme Court parking case.

Whiteorchid

My Defence is about ready I think! Please check this is OK, my deadline is tomorrow! Thank you

…………………..

IN THE COUNTY COURT. Claim No.: XXXXXXX

Between

ParkingEye Ltd (Claimant) 

- and -  

Mrs X  (Defendant)

…………………..

DEFENCE

____________________

The facts in this defence come from the defendants own knowledge and honest belief for reasonable grounds to defend the claim. It is admitted that the defendant is the keeper and driver of vehicle XYZ and attended "Car Park At Woolstaplers, Chichester, PO19 1QL on 05/04/2024.

1. As per template

2. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial.

3.1 The Particulars allege “parking without paying to park” -  a statement that is factually untrue. 

3.2. The defendant denies the allegation that they entered and left the site and parked without payment. Payment was made and proof of this has been shown. The defendant made a payment at the earliest opportunity of £2.20 for a two hour stay. The app displayed a countdown screen showing the time the payment expired. The defendant left before the expiry time.

3.3. The claimant did not provide a working payment facility. Payment relied on downloading an App and relied on phone/network coverage. The claimant did not provide network coverage within the underground carpark, nor was any coverage to be found until some distance away from the building. 

3.4 The defendant was the carer of an elderly disabled passenger and the only pedestrian exit available was via several flights of stairs, which took extra time. "Do I need to include these two paragraphs?"

3.5 The defendant confirms that they appealed to POPLA and this was rejected.  

The defendant appealed submitting proof of payment, (which was not disputed by ParkingEye), and reported that payment could not be made immediately due to the payment system not operating within the underground carpark. As well as assisting an elderly passenger with Dementia and age related mobility issues. The Claimant has failed to follow the British Parking Association Code of Practice (CoP). 

Paragraph 16.1 “Accessible Parking” of the BPA states:

“Where parking is being provided as a service, you need to have regard to the obligations placed upon you by the Equality Act 2010 and the Services, Public functions and Associations: Statutory Code of Practice, issued by the Equality and Human Rights (EHRC), in particular to make reasonable adaptations to accommodate disabled people”…

“This might be appropriate for recognising the needs of people with limited physical mobility, but adaptations are not purely physical - people with other disabilities might reasonably need longer consideration period and grace periods, more time to access payment machinery, and other ways to pay where payment is required. Recognition of these obligations is important in the consideration of appeals”.

One of the reasons that POPLA is being replaced this year - as part of the MHCLG's wider regulatory regime coming in with the statutory Code of Practice this Autumn - is that both appeals services are self-serving and non-impartial, with POPLA particularly criticised for (illegally) refusing to consider the Equality Act 2010.

4. As per template…..

5. Para 5 on template re DVLA not applicable in my case. - Not used.

6. As per template….

7. Para 7 on template replaced with similar as follows:

7. It is apparent from the high amount of the CCJ (£210) that the Claimant has added £25 to enhance their claim.  This sum was neither incurred as damages, nor as a valid fee, and nor was it part of any agreed contract. The signs at this car park are sporadically placed inside with no signs at the entrance. But any PCN sum here is £100. The £125 charge imposed is exaggerated and it is an unjustified penalty. The Defendant takes the point that enhancing their claim on either impermissible sums or on an incorrect basis is reason enough to disallow the claim.  The added £25 is plucked out of thin air and must fail for these reasons:

i)  The added £25 does not appear in the contract (the signs) and

ii)  in view of the binding decision at the High Court (later appealed but the HC decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal) in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB):

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff76260d03e7f57eabf43

The Defendant's position is that this claim is in part/wholly a penalty, applying the authority in ParkingEye cases (ref: paras 98, 100,193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and with specific reliance upon para 419 of HHJ Hegarty's decision in Somerfield, which is unaffected by Beavis. In the former case, the parking charge was set at £75 (discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment) then increased ultimately to £135. At para 419, HHJ Hegarty (sitting as a HCJ) found that adding £60 to an already 

increased parking charge 'would appear to be penal' and unrecoverable. ParkingEye had dropped this punitive enhancement by the time of Mr Beavis' infamous Supreme Court parking case.

8. As per template

9. As per template

10. As per template.

…………………………………

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Mrs X

Date: XX/XX/XXXX

(I will re number my defence accordingly once ready to send)

Coupon-mad

Don't drop para 7.

Drop para 10.

Whiteorchid

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81952050#Comment_81952050

Thank you, I would like to keep para 10 as I do wish to claim costs!

Coupon-mad

OK, so go through removing repetition but don't lose important stuff.

Whiteorchid

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81952206#Comment_81952206

I submitted my Defence within the 21 days, verbally given by the Judge at the Set Aside hearing. (I never received any paperwork from the court regarding this). Last week I received the request to submit my Directions Questionnaire, which I am emailing today. I have answered "no" to D1… Due to living overseas, I have entered a family address under "Address for Service" so that any post can be dealt with immediately. Also giving dates when I am not available (not in the UK).

Coupon-mad

You should also attach a signed & dated costs assessment, including flights into / back from the UK.

cc in the solicitors to everything.

Whiteorchid

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81988007#Comment_81988007

Thank you for that valuable reminder. I am very keen to submit a Costs Assessment. These people deserve to be taken to the cleaners having put me through all this. When I actually paid for parking, was only 4 minutes late due to their ineffective payment system! They have pursued me like vultures, not even agreeing to a Consent Order… Grrr, just venting again!

I am not quite sure how to present this. Am I only able to claim for the costs related to this proposed attendance at Court? Would I need to use the form N260? Or just make a list of the actual figures I believe should be paid. My hourly rate in preparing the defence, completing forms? Flight costs, travel expenses to obtain further photos etc. Should I start with something like this:

The Defendant seeks:

(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) the Court to reserve, assess and award the Defendant’s Summary Costs Assessment, to be filed and served at Witness Statement stage in anticipation of a typical late Notice of Discontinuance (‘NoD’) from this Claimant.