Need urgent help: County court claim private parking PCN

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Please do, so we can see what the PCN is about and where. Seems to be a permit issue but what sort of car park and why did the driver stop there, and was it just for minutes as per the C's photos?



You obviously need to remove the forum glitches in #9, like this (it's not meant to be there and is not some sort of secret code, it's a posting error):

And re the SAR, you cannot yet post links so PLEASE don't reply ''I can't post links''.

You can if you break the URL like every other newbie does.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Sorry to ask this but why would anyone drive past 'private land' entrance signs from a scammer on a Sunday, to enter a car park, when streets nearby (like Alexandra Road, as it looks on GSV) are completely unrestricted parking on Sundays?



I always ask this, and I encourage people to see the light about this scam. I don't understand why people seek out car parks, when all they are doing is loading something that can be done on street, as long as you avoid 'no loading' yellow kerb blip lines.

Avoid private car parks like the plague (we all do). Seek out on-street parking.

Anyway, that's a plan for the future - avoid this sort of site like the plague! A Hounslow Council PCN would have been easier to overturn...much easier, and would have been avoidable altogether by parking on a 'non-Sunday' residents' permits street.

Re this case, that is a decent defence draft if you remove the forum glitches as I mentioned before.

i would add to these points:

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Probably not relevant really, but it would be useful to have proof, if the parcel was being picked up from those actual premises (not if the car park was being abused while the driver went off elsewhere...).

Parking firms issuing windscreen PCNs do NOT have CCTV. Believe me.

If you were the driver then decide now if you are going to admit that in the defence. As the Judge might ask 'were you the driver?' and if so, you wouldn't lie!


This one:



The bit after 'Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous' suits your case if you change the £sum to suit.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Try this version.

In red is where I've added or altered something (obviously change it to black!).

Will you defend as driver, or was the D not driving?

---

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

EURO PARKING SERVICES LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________

DEFENCE
________________________________________

1) The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2) The terms on the Claimant's signage do not offer any kind of parking [STRIKE]service[/STRIKE] licence to anyone who isn't in a pre-authorised vehicle or holding a permit. If there is no offer of parking then the basic requirements for forming a contract with the driver are not present (in basic terms, 'offer', 'acceptance', and 'consideration'), and no contract can be formed. If there is no contract then there is no breach, and hence no charge for a breach. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

3) The Defendant believes that parking in what is now painted by the Claimant as effectively a 'no unauthorised parking' [STRIKE]arrangement[/STRIKE] location would be a Trespass issue, for which only the landholder can take action (not some parking company) and only for nominal or actual damages, not some made-up £100 charge.

4) [STRIKE]The Defendant denies that driver or keeper of the vehicle agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days of issue as it states on the claim form.[/STRIKE] Further, the few minutes between the Claimant's photographs and the lack of any windscreen PCN served, suggests that this may have been an untrained and unauthorised 'self-ticketer' taking predatory photos for a 'bounty' payment - effectively an incentivised lurker.

4(i). ANPR cameras were not used, and yet no windscreen PCN was placed by the person taking the images and no time was allowed for the driver to have had a fair opportunity to seek out any hidden/high signs and read the small print terms, and decide whether to stay or go, or even to obtain a permit/authorisation from the adjacent premises. It is believed that the site had no lines or markings on the tarmac to suggest there were permit-only bays.

4)(ii). It appears that this Claimant's photographers are lying in wait at this location for purported trespassers and instead of placing clear signage and/or warning a driver to move on, they are parking (or allowing to be parked) vans in front of the signage and then taking unsolicited photos to upload to the Claimant, who has no involvement, yet remains liable for these actions. This gives a motorist no opportunity to learn of the terms by which he/she has been bound until the registered keeper receives a letter weeks later. This is not in line with the will of Parliament, which only added paragraph 9 (postal PCNs) to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') to allow for remote ANPR systems where there were no feet on the ground for a parking firm, and did not envisage this predatory scenario.

4(iii). The Defendant interprets this conduct to be in breach of the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice ('the IPC CoP') including the section regarding: 'grace periods', 'no predatory ticketing', 'no incentives' and 'rules on self ticketing'. The Claimant has (via their solicitors, who shared Directors with the IPC in a clear conflict of interests) signed statements of truth which say they adhere to the IPC CoP. It is averred that this Claimant does not. To sign a statement of truth on the claim form when it is not correct has significant implications and indeed the Supreme Court are on record as holding a parking firm to strict compliance with their CoP, which was held to be effectively 'regulatory'.

4(iv). The IPC has recently suspended self-ticketing for at least one AOS member and called an emergency IPC members' meeting this month (April 2019) due to predatory ticketing and serious breaches of the IPC Code of Practice by untrained and incentivised self-ticketers. Whilst the self-ticketer exposed on television for the most recent unauthorised and allegedly fraudulent conduct was not an employee of this claimant, Euro Parking Services Ltd are put to strict proof regarding whether or not an employee took these photos, when and how that person was trained and the site duly audited, and to explain why no windscreen PCN was issued, nor grace period allowed for the driver to read the signs, despite the photographer evidently standing near the car during the few minutes snatched to create the incriminating appearance of a contravention.

5) in addition to the above breaches, the Defendant denies that the signs at the location were in compliance with the IPC CoP and believes they were sparsely placed high on a wall or where a parked van could obscure the terms.

5)(i) Where a driver does not see the terms, the driver cannot be bound by them and the authorities for this are (a) Vine v Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA, in which Miss Vine prevailed due to unclear signs hidden behind vans and the fact she did not see them - the judgment from Roch LJ being quite different from the general presumption that the Claimant is likely to invite the Court to make - and (b) ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) described non-prominent signs and unclear terms as creating a 'concealed pitfall or trap' and further confirmed that a non-landowner parking firm could not have pursued a sum pleaded in damages, or for trespass, which remains solely in the gift of a landowner.

5)(ii). It is for the Claimant to show that their signage is capable of forming a contract and offering a lawful parking licence to non permit holders (and is not just dressing up possible trespass as if it were a matter of contractual agreement). The Claimant must also show that the positions of signs remain clear to all motorists before parking/leaving the vehicle for a length of time, even when vans are parked within this site.

6) The Defendant has asked the Claimants solicitor for a site map and photographs of the signs taken on the day. The request has been ignored.

7) The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the capacity to take legal action in this matter.

8) 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 to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

9) The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

10) Due to the sparseness of the particulars, 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, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

[STRIKE]The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.[/STRIKE]

Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
11). CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

11)(i). Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were either sent by a third party which offers a 'no collection, no fee' service, or were a standard feature of a low cost business model. The Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum is, by definition, already hugely inflated for profit, not loss, and the Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead their case in damages, as none exist.

11)(ii). The Claimant cannot reasonably recover an additional three figure sum in damages or costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The POFA states that the maximum sum that may be recovered is the charge stated on a compliant Notice to Keeper ('NTK') - in this case £100 - and it is denied that the NTK or the signage met the high bar set in the POFA for mandatory wording and adequate notice of the charge.

11).(iii). Even the purported 'legal costs' are made up out of thin air. No individual Solicitor has signed the Particulars of Claim - in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity - and this template roboclaim has clearly had no input from any supervising Solicitor, whether in house or externally. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated clerical staff.

12. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.


Name


Signature

Date