PLEASE HELP! Court Claim for residential parking fines!

Hello again.

I have managed to put my defence together and I will appreciate if someone could have a look through it and correct/add whatever is missing.

Thank you in advance.


In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: XXXXXX

Between:

UK Parking Control Ltd v XXXXXX


Preliminary

1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.

Background

3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle was insured with [provider] with [number] of named drivers permitted to use it at the time.

4. The Defendant is unable to identify the driver for the [dates]. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
4.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
4.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
4.2.1. there was a relevant obligation either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
4.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

4.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

5. It is admitted that the Defendant parked the vehicle on the material dates, whilst residing at the private residential property. It is denied that there was any relevant obligation upon the Defendant that have been breached. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

6. It is denied that any "parking charges or loss/damages" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

7. The claimant has not provided enough details to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.
The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

8. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking 'parking management'. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

9. It is not admitted that the Claimant has contractual or other lawful authority to make contracts with residents at this location, and/or to bring proceedings against the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof. Further, and in the alternative, the Defendant avers that the Claimant requires the permission the owner of the relevant land - not merely another contractor or site agent not in possession - in order to commence proceedings.

10. The Defendant avers that the operators signs cannot
(i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and
(ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

11. Accordingly it is denied that:
11.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
11.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
11.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim

12. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

13 How can there be a legitimate interest in penalising residents for using parking spaces, under the excuse of a scheme where ostensibly and as far as the landowner is concerned, the parking firm is contracted for the benefit of the residents. It is contrary to the requirement of good faith and of all proportion to any legitimate interest to fine residents for using the parking spaces provided.

13.1. The presence of the Claimant on the land will have supposedly been to prevent parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of the actual leaseholders. Instead, a predatory operation has been carried out on those very people whose interests the Claimant was purportedly there to uphold.

14. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against motorists, alleging 'debts' for parking on free resident parking areas is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

15.
The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

16. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Signed

Thank you.
Do you suggest I delete para 5?

See my additional comment. You need to decide.

I have removed para 5.

Also I am not sure about para 10, if it relevant to my case.

Could you have a quick look at that please?
Thank you