Do I have a valid defence?

Hi All,


I Went back to the site to take better picture of the parking signs but the signs have been replaced and there are more of them. The confusing fallen road sign has also been removed.


I believe this proves the PPC thought they were inadequate and misleading and decided to change them.


Should I put this in the defence statement or should I just put it in the witness statement?


Thanks in advance

So this is my defence, If all is ok I'll be posting this to the court tomorrow. What do you think?




In the County Court
Claim Number: ******************
Between
PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) LTD v ************************





Defence





1 Introduction

1.1. It is admitted that at the time of the alleged infringement the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark******which is the subject of these proceedings.



1.2. The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained. The Claimant is put to strict proof.


1.3. This claim refers to a parking incident on land outside ****** For all intents and purposes land appears to be part of the public highway as indicated by the fallen “End of Parking restriction” sign.


1.4. On the ********* at approximately 21:30 the vehicle was on said land.


1.5. The Particulars of Claim states that the charge is for breaching the terms of parking on the land.
1.6. The claimant has not provided any evidence of landowner authority for issuing parking charges.




2 No Contract Exists

2.1 I understand that the Claimants case relies upon the signage at the site constituting a contract between myself and the Claimant. The breach of terms on the Particulars of Claim presumably refers to the supposed contract formed by this signage.

2.2 There is no offer made by the signage in this case, and no conceivable way the driver could have benefitted from this alleged contract, without breaching its terms. The sign states 'No parking in this area wholly or partially at any time'.

2.3 The very act of entering into this alleged contract (parking) constitutes a breach of its terms, therefore making it impossible to perform. How was the sum of £100 'agreed', given that PCM's sign is prohibitive - unable in this case to be deemed to be offering a contract? It is submitted that if these notices are attempting to make a contractual offer, then as they are forbidding as they do not fulfil the basic requirement of a contract, which is that each party to the contract must offer valuable consideration to the other party, on clear terms capable of acceptance. In this case neither the Claimant, nor their principal the landowner, is offering anything to motorists

2.4 The signage at the site is also very similar to the signage in the cases of Horizon Parking v Mr J. Guildford, and PCMUK vs Bull et al, in which it was ruled that, if any contractual arrangement could be implied by such signage, then it only applied to vehicles which were authorised to park and therefore charges could not be made on a contractual basis for vehicles that were not authorised to park. The driver cannot have entered into a contract for something He was not authorised to do.





3 Inadequate Signage/Predatory enforcement

3.1 The IPC guidelines state that signage at the entrance to the site should make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land. There is no signage at the entrance to the site in question and one can see from the photographs that the driver would not have passed any signage indicating he was entering private land.

3.2 The writing is so small that any terms and conditions cannot be clearly read from a vehicle, even stopped adjacent to the sign. If it was held that the signage was contractually valid, it would be impossible for a motorist to have read the terms and conditions contained therein from a moving or stopped vehicle, and if the vehicle is stopped, the ‘contravention’ according to the Claimant is already committed.



3.3 The signage was lit from above and behind and in the dark any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver.


3.4. The claimant has recognized that the signage was inadequate and has subsequently replaced and added extra signage. He has also removed the misleading “end of parking restriction” sign




4 Landowner Authority



4.1 The Claimant has not provided any evidence that they are authorised by the freeholder to issue parking charges and carry out court proceedings on their behalf. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have such authority, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant.






5 Penalty charge






5.1 The charge of £100 is a penalty and unfair consumercharge. The leading case on this matter is ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. In that case it was ruled that the penalties rule was engaged but the charge was not unfair because the motorist had the bargain of 2 hours of valuable free parking in exchange for the risk of paying £100 for overstaying. The risk was clearly brought to the attention of the consumer in a huge font. Here, there is no valuable consideration on offer and no bargain for the consumer, and the charge is hidden in small print. It is submitted that no motorist would agree to pay £100 instantly on stopping and this is therefore and unfair consumer term in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.





6 Additional Costs

6.1 The Particulars of Claim include £60 over and above the original parking charge. I have no idea what these charges refer to as there appears to be no contractual basis for them, even if one were to take the Claimants somewhat far-fetched view as to what constitutes a contract into account. The Claimant is put to strict proof that these additional charges are justified.

6.2 The Particulars of Claim include £50 for solicitor's costs, yet all I have received from the Claimants solicitors are automated letters. The Claimant is put to strict proof that these costs are justified. Proof that the sum of £50 was paid by their client, to whom, and for what service.






I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true











...............................................................


(Defendant)





...........................


(Date)

KeithP wrote: »

Why will you be posting it to the court?

Send it by email to the easily found CCBCAQ email address.

I thought posting was recommended?

I thought I would add the following to the Defence. I know the second part probably adds no legal weight but do you think it might help set the tone. it certainly explains how I feel.


to be added at the start;

• Preliminary matters
  

1. Claim should be struck out pursuant to Rule 3.4 by the court exercising its inherent case management powers] The Particulars of Claim fail to fulfil CPR Part 16.4 because it does not include a statement of the facts on which the claimant relies, only referring to a Parking Charge Notice with no further description; it fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence:
   ‘The driver of the vehicle registration XXXX XXX incurred the parking charge(s) on XX/XX/2017 for breaching the terms of parking on the land at XXXXXXXXXX.
   The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle
   AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
   £160.00 for Parking Charges / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with
   interest of £11.27 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing
   to Judgement at £0.04 per day’
2. The Particulars of Claim are extremely sparse and coupled with the Claimant's failure to comply with its pre-action obligations to fully explain the claim results in the Defendant being unable to understand how the claim is being pursued and to defend it properly. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person, the Defendants seeks I seek the Court's permission to amend and supplement this defence as may be required upon disclosure of the claimant's case.

to be added at the end;






7. STRIKE-OUT/DISMISSAL:

The Defendant invites the court to strike out or dismiss the claim under Rule 3.4(2)(a) of PRACTICE DIRECTION 3A as having not set out a concise statement of the nature of the claim or disclosed reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim (Part 16.4(1)(a) and PRACTICE DIRECTION 16 paragraphs 3.1-3.8). In C3GF84Y (Mason, Plymouth County Court), the judge struck out the claim brought by KBT Cornwall Ltd as Gladstones Solicitors had not submitted proper Particulars of Claim, and similar reasons were cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''. The Practice Direction also sets out the following example which is analogous to this claim: ‘those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’.’




8. GLADSTONES/IPC:

The Defendant researched the matter online, and discovered that the Claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), an organisation operated by Gladstones Solicitors. They also operate the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant’s trade body, the IPC. This research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors. The individuals in question are John Davies, and William Hurley. These findings indicate a conflict of interest. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.




9. GLADSTONES INCOMPETENCE:

The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims and the solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.




10. ROBO CLAIMS:

The Defendant believes the terms for such conduct is ‘robo claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to their significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.




11. IMPROPER ‘SMALL CLAIMS’ USE:

The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the Courts should be seen to support.




12. CLAIMANT CONDUCT:

The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.