Help Please! Parking Fine County Court Pack

Preliminary Matters: Claim should be struck out pursuant to Rule 3.4 by the court exercising its inherent case management powers

1. 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/2016 for breaching the terms of parking on the land at Tariff Street Manchester.
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 £10.64 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgement at £0.04 per day’

The Defendant invites the court to dismiss this claim out as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under Practice Direction 16, set out by the Ministry of Justice and also Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under 16.4 and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

2. INADEQUATE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM:
The claimant has not provided enough details in the Particulars of Claim for the Defendant to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided and the Claimant has not specified whether the claim is brought for breach of contract or in trespass.
a. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.

b. The Claimant has simply stated that a parking charge was incurred.

c. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.

d. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence.

e. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.


3. INVALID AND EXCESSIVE CHARGES:

a. There was any no agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums, which are in any case unsupported by the Beavis case and unsupported for cases on the small claims track.

b. The Claimant failed to fully comply with its obligation to follow the Approved Operator Scheme's Code of Practice of the International Parking Community; such compliance is necessary for the "penalty rule" to be disengaged, as found in the Beavis case.

c. The demanded value of the Claim of £170.64 has been artificially inflated from £1 for a valid hour’s parking. These added costs are excessive and unconscionable have not actually been incurred by the Claimant. This is especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council for parking after the expiry of paid for time at a Pay and Display bay, which is set at £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days.

d. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”.

e. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £1 for a valid one hour parking charge to £170.64. This appears to be an added cost with no apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

f. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

4. FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SIGNAGE:

The signage on this site was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist.

a. The signage on and around the site in question was unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay the amount demanded by the Claimant, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.

b. The size of font of the prices advised for parking is much larger than the font of the contract and the offer is not sufficiently brought to the attention of the motorist, nor are the onerous terms (the punitive parking charge - effectively a private 'fine') sufficiently prominent to satisfy Lo Lord Denning's 'Red Hand Rule' and contrary to the requirements of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

c. In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.

d. The PayByPhone signage specifically states that there is “No need to display a ticket in your car” therefore there was no breach of any ‘relevant obligation’ or ‘relevant contract’ as required under Schedule 4 of POFA.

e. If the Claimant wanted to impose a condition to continuously display permits, then they should have drafted clear instruction to that effect, requiring specific terms of how to 'continuously display' when a paper ticket has not been issued or there is no contravention.

f. Where contract terms have different meanings, as in this instance when a paper ticket was not issued due to the chosen method of payment, then Section 69 of the CRA 2015 provides a statutory form of the contra proferentem rule, such that the consumer must be given the benefit of the doubt.
The term is fundamental to the contract, and the Defendant invites the Court to find that it is not transparent and therefore unfair. If a fundamental term to the contract is deemed to be unfair, then the contract will cease to bind the parties. The Defence invites the Court to take these issues into account in determining the fairness of the term.

5. FAILURE TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE GROUNDS:

The Claimant has failed to establish reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim:

a. SIP Parking Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land. The Defendant has reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.

b. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.

c. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question.

d. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge.

e. The Particulars of Claim are deficient in establishing whether the claim is brought in trespass. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis vs ParkingEye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

6. 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’.’

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

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

Signed:

Date: XX/XX/XXXX

Haha the headings were for me to make sense of what I was doing and get my doc into logical sections to help me take out repetition - I was planning on removing those on the final version! God that would totally get their backs up

I will definitely merge those two sections as suggested. I have nearly two weeks to get this right but at least now it's all a bit more familiar now, as I was so overwhelmed before!

Thanks so much for helping me.