Euro Car Parks PCN overstayed of 12 min total

pixie_man

Here is what I want to write (ignore formating it looks better in word):
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 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 and driver.

3. The allegation appears to be based on images by the Claimant’s ANPR cameras at the entrance and exit to the site. These are merely images of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper not purchasing the appropriate parking time.

4. The facts are that the vehicle XXXX ,of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked at York Street Manchester car park and did purchase a valid ticket for 1hr parking. To the best of the Defendant’s knowledge, they fully complied with the car park’s rules by entering the VRN and purchasing a ticket within the initial ‘observation period’ allowed by the British Parking Association’s (BPA)Code of Practice (CoP) and left within the minimum ten minutes ‘grace period’ allowed by the BPA CoP at the end of the parking period.

5. Upon receipt of PCN from the Claimant, the Defendant supplied them with evidence that a ticket for 1hr was in fact purchased, however, they have selected to pursue this matter through ligation.

6. The Claimant is claiming that the Defendant has overstayed for 12 minutes as they had paid for 1 hr only. The Claimant has failed to allow sufficient grace period and observation period for the Defendant for both in entry and exit based on the BPA Code of Practice.

7. Due to the conditions at the car park at time, the Defendant was unable to purchase a ticket straightaway. Time stamp between Entry ANPR camera and ticket purchased show a 4 minute time difference.

8. The Claimant has ignored both the initial (arrival)’observation period’ as well as the final ‘grace period’ after the expiry of paid up time. The latter ‘grace period’ is stated in the BPA Code of Practice, as a mandatory period of at least ten minutes after a ticket has expired, and this in fact is the industry standard.

9. A BPA article by Kelvin Reynolds, PA Director of Corporate Affairs who this Claimant is well aware, is on record as saying “there is a difference between ‘grace periods’ and ‘observation periods’ in parking and that good practice allows for this. An observation period is when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what a motorist intends to do once in the car park. Our guidance specifically says there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket. No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another ten minutes, depending on various factors not limited to disability. The BPA’s guidance on the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid for parking. The Claimant has ignored this guidance and therefore not abided by it’s own BPA’s code of practice.

10. Furthermore, there was no overstay nor any misuse of valuable parking space by the Defendant, whose car was parked in good faith, not in contravention nor causing an obstruction, and certainly not ‘unauthorised’.

Denial of contract and of any breach, or liability———————————————————————————

11. Due to sparseness of the POC it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant breached any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied or by conduct.

12. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant’s signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.

13. The terms on the Claimant’s signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read said font would be unable to do so easily.

No standing or authority to form contracts and/or litigate———————————————————————————

14. The claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner re issuing parking tickets and to pursue payments by means of litigation.

Excess charges———————————————————————————

15. 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.

16. This claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due in debt or damages. This Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it.

17. This is a classic example where adding exaggerated fees funds bulk litigation of weak and/or archive parking cases. No checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit or a cause of action (given away by the woefully inadequate POC).

18. This claim has been enhanced by a disproportionate sum, believed to enrich the litigating legal team. It appears to be double recovery, duplicating the intended 'legal fees' cap set by small claims track rules.

19. The draft IA shows that the intimidating letter-chains endured by Defendants cost 'eight times less' than the fixed +£70 per PCN. This causes immense consumer harm in the form of some half a million wrongly enhanced CCJs each year, that Judges are powerless to prevent.  MoJ statistics reveal several hundred thousand parking claims per annum, with c90% causing default CCJs totalling hundreds of millions of pounds. The false fee was enabled by the self-serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies who aligned in 2021 to allow +£70, each led by a Board comprising the parking and debt firms who stood to gain from it. 

20. It is denied that the added damages/fee sought was incurred or is recoverable. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis. Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment.  Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (decision ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs' inflating a PCN to £135 exaggerated the cost of template letters and 'would appear to be penal'.

21. This Claimant has not incurred costs. A PCN model already includes what the Supreme Court called an 'automated letter-chain' and it generates a healthy profit. In Beavis, there were 4 pre-action letters/reminders and £85 was held to more than cover the minor costs of the operation (NB: debt collectors charge nothing in failed collection cases).

22. Whilst the new Code is not retrospective, all non-monetary clauses went unchallenged. It will replace the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes, which are not regulation and carry limited weight.  It is surely a clear steer for the Courts that the DLUHC said in 2023 that it is addressing 'market failure'.

23. According to Ladak V DRC Locums UKEAR/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administrative costs allegedly incurred by already renumerated clerical staff.

Conclusion———————————————————————————

27. The Claimant’s particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the court is invited to dismiss the claim in it’s entirety and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule.27.14

24. There is now evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims that are causing consumer harm.  The July 2023 DLUHC IA analysis shows that the usual letter-chain costs eight times less than the sum claimed for it.  The claim is entirely without merit and the POC embarrassing.  The Defendant believes that it is in the public interest that poorly pleaded claims like this should be struck out.

25. In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

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

(b) a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, and further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5. 

26.  Attention is drawn to the (often-seen) distinct possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."   

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.

Signature:

Date:

Coupon-mad

That thread - SEVEN YEARS OLD! - is very out of date and far too old to be reading in detail but you can take a paragraph from it, if it's relevant, and slot that in as your para 3 with your facts.

You will use the Template Defence.

You showed your MCOL password there. Here it is redacted:

pixie_man

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81984698#Comment_81984698

@Gr1pr why are you saying I wasn't within accepted 10 min? I left the car park 8 min after my ticket expired. It was total of 12 min including 4 min at the begining 9time to purchase the ticket). I am under the impression the grace period is 10 min before and 10 min after, is it not?

Gr1pr

No its not, check the relevant BPA CoP in force on the incident date , so the Joint Code of Practice

Its never been 10 + 10. !

I suggest that you use the typical recent generic paragraph 3 rebuttal, refuting the POC

Or

Add your paragraphs 3 & 4 above to the current 10 paragraph defence and renumber to 11 in total

The current 10 paragraph defence template is in announcements near the top of the forum

pixie_man

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81984702#Comment_81984702

I noticed that are swapped the pictures I hope you can see fuly redacted version.

pixie_man

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81984843#Comment_81984843

@Gr1pr I would like to put the below as my 2nd anf 3rd paragraph in the latest 10 paragraph template:
2. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. There was not contravention on 23/08/20254. Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations. 

3.  The facts are that the vehicle XXXX ,of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked at York Street Manchester car park and did purchase a valid ticket for 1hr parking. To the best of the Defendant’s knowledge, they fully complied with the car park’s rules by entering the VRN and purchasing a ticket within the initial Cooling-off Period allowed by the British Parking Association’s (BPA)Code of Practice (CoP) and left within the minimum ten minutes ‘grace period’ allowed by the BPA CoP v1.1 at the end of the parking period. On 23.08.25, I purchased the ricket within 4 min from entering the carpark and left 8 min after my ticket expired. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (Version 1.1), was in effect. This document defines in Annex B and Tale B.1, a Cooling-off Period as compulsory 5-minute cooling-off period to consider terms and conditions. And Grace Periods as a mandatory 10-minute grace period at the end of paid time is standard.

Gr1pr

Your paragraph 2 should be paragraph 3 , and the date has a typo too, plus not should be no, delete the t

Your 3 above should be a new number 4, then renumber the rest as 5 to 11 , making 11 in total

Your defence is written in the 3rd person, no I, no MY , so correct paragraph 3 above and renumber them to 3 & 4

Typos I spotted were ricket instead of ticket etc, so spell checking is required and put a space after (BPA)

State that the 10 minutes has always been the minimum grace period not an absolute

add the following to the end of the actual template paragraph 2

and driver

pixie_man

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81984912#Comment_81984912

Thanks @Gr1pr for your help. I submitted corrected version.

Gr1pr

Excellent

Please post your adapted paragraphs 2 & 3 & 4 below as an example to other victims / defendants , from your 11 paragraph submission