OK whats my next move?

sparkyhx · 15 November 2018 at 6:24PM

...............….on looking back Coupon Mad started the Sar thread recommending everyone did it. I wasn't going mad after all. :-)

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5849784&page=9#topofpage

sparkyhx · 19 November 2018 at 2:06PM

OK - this is the draft of the defence, i'm still really unsure of using the POFA angle.
I would appreciate your considered opinion.
p.s. SAR request gone into HX Car Park Management - who's email address on their website is curiously 'invalid'......you have to tweak it to make it valid. If I was cynical I could say that was deliberate!

Main thrust of the defence is 1-11 with the rest just 'add on'

thanks

DEFENCE

It will be common ground that this claim refers to a private parking charge notice' (PCN) relating to a day when the Driver paid and displayed and was authorised to park.

1.1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.
1.2. The Claimant has no cause for action based upon the facts of this case. Any breach of contractual terms is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant any £100 'parking charge' or any sum at all in addition to the parking tariff.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. The sign at the entrance to the site states “Please refer to the full terms and conditions located at the Pay and Display Machine”(PDT Machine).

5. Any reasonable user of a Pay and Display car park would rely on the terms and conditions stated at the time of paying at the PDT machine

6. Sign at the PDT machine states “Pay and Display Ticket must be purchased at the time of Parking”.
6.1. The Driver complied with all Terms and Condition, namely they bought a ticket at the time of Parking for the agreed tariff, and received in exchange a PDT confirming the terms, and left the site prior to expiry of the ticket. Thus the Claimant's claim must fail.
6.2. Payment for parking was made via payment machine and a ticket was issued and displayed in car windscreen.
6.3. The purchased ticket covered the parking time of 2 hrs (120 minutes) and the Driver took notice of the offered expiry time on the Pay & Display Ticket ('PDT') receipt, and left promptly.

7. The sign next to the PDT machine states “Parking charge Notices will be issued for….” And goes on to list a number of infringements. NONE of the stated rules were violated. Thus the Claimant's claim must fail.
7.1. The Driver bought and displayed a valid ticket
7.2. The Driver parked within a marked bay
7.3. The Driver did NOT exceed the maximum vehicle weight or height
7.4. The Driver left promptly before the end of the time paid for
7.5. The Driver entered the correct vehicle registration into the PDT Machine

8. The Parking Charge Notice received by the Defendant at a later date refers to the contravention “Failed to Purchase a pay and display ticket within the grace period allowed”.
8.1. As stated in both sections 2 and 3 above, there is no mention either specific or implied that there was a grace period after entry to the site in which to purchase a ticket and that a Parking Charge Notice will be issued on failure to comply. Thus the Claimant's claim must fail
8.2. The Driver did pay and display as soon as was reasonably possible given the circumstances on arrival. The car park was full on arrival and the driver had to wait until a space became available. A few minutes were taken waiting for a space, then parking, locking the car, walking over to the signs and machine and finding the change to obtain a PDT in good faith.
8.3. In Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 EGLR -154, it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach when unable to fully comply with the terms.
8.4. The above is also covered and been tested in the County Court before, and a transcript will be produced which (whilst not binding precedent) is on all fours with this case, namely (3JD08399) Parking Eye v Ms X at Altrincham 17/03/2014, where it was held that waiting is not parking and until a driver had actually parked and read the signs, there was no parking contract possible relating to any obligation on a Driver whilst looking for a parking space, to purchase a PDT.
8.5. No contract can be in force as no consideration has been offered by the claimant and accepted by the Driver as there were no parking spaces initially
8.6. If the Claimant argues that a Driver should be held to a completely different and unexpected start time (on arrival past hidden ANPR cameras) then the PDT machine terms should clearly state that 'total stay' was being calculated, and the machine should have produced a PDT with the adjusted expiry, calculated by synchronising with the data stream fed from the initial ANPR image.
8.7. Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 WLR 585 (Court of Appeal) holds good as the relevant case law, to confirm that the time of a parking licence in a car park begins when the Driver pays the money and relies upon terms printed on the PDT. Further unexpected terms cannot be imposed.
8.8. In the PCN, No reference was made to the disputed time interval in any correspondence and the Defendant has had to guess why a PCN was issued. In the Defendant's appeal last year (and a number of times subsequently) the Defendant has asked the Claimant to provide proof of the time period in dispute and confirm a ticket was purchased by the Driver (effectively the licence) for a time period in excess of the time on site. The Driver had no idea the Claimant was working to a hidden, undisclosed and unsynchronised timeline.
8.9. The Claimant has deliberately obfuscated the incident time in the correspondence and repeatedly ignored requests for clarification.

9. A mandatory grace period is required by the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice, (of which the Claimant was a member at the time of the alleged infringement) which states a "sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs" must be provided.
9.1. Even if there had been clear signage and the driver was able to see it, the grace time is not adequate.

10. The full Terms and Conditions printed on the PDT Machine sign are contradicted by additional signs within the site. These signs as well as contradicting the main terms and conditions, cannot be seen clearly by any driver of any car and do not meet IPC Guidelines
10.1. Additional signs that include the mention of a grace period are not visible by the driver from a car that is either waiting for a space nor are they visible from a parked car due to the size of the sign, size of font and the height and positioning. It is, therefore, denied that this element of the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract that contradicts more prominent and visible full terms and conditions of the PDT sign.
10.2. Additional signage is contradictory, the Defendant avers that the driver cannot be bound by unknown terms that become apparent only weeks later when an unexpected PCN arrives at the home of the registered keeper. The Driver was entitled to rely upon the reasonable understanding that the PDT from the machine spelt out the parking/expiry time, and that the contract began then and there. Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ 2 is the leading authority for the trite law position that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded, without reasonable notice before.
10.3. The bar for clear parking terms on signage was set by Denning LJ in J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] referring to the well-known 'Red Hand Rule' where hidden/unknown terms were held to be unenforceable: ''Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink...with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient.''

11. With no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant is fully aware that their claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail. This case is fully distinguished in all respects, from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the decision turned on a legitimate interest and clear notices and completely different facts in a free car park.

12. Further, in order to issue and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. This Claimant has taken no steps to provide evidence that such authority existed (despite being requested to supply this information by the Defendant on a number of occasions), and that they were entitled to pursue paying drivers for a penalty for the time spent driving round before parking.
12.1. Even if the landowner contract allows for this, it is an unreasonable and unenforceable term, akin to charging a person at the point of joining a queue to obtain a ticket entitling them to (say) an hour on a golf course or tennis court - then penalising the person for an extra £100 if they rightly concluded from the information available, that they were indeed allowed the hour they paid for.

13. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full
defence. In particular; the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.
13.1. 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. It just states “Parking Charges / Damages” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.
13.2. 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.
13.3. 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.
13.4. On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking
charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St
Albans County Court without a hearing due to their particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law
a) On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very
similar parking charge particulars of claim were inefficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4
and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 & 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new
particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be
struck out.

14. The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.
14.1. I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out
that there can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-
action Conduct process, especially bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their
own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before issuing proceedings.

15. HX Car Park Management are not the lawful occupier of the land. Despite several documented requests for information, none has been provided.
15.1. HX Car Park Management have provided no evidence that they have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have rights to bring action regarding this claim.
15.2. 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.
15.3. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a
vehicle parking at the location in question.
15.4. The Claimant is put to strict 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

16. Add POFA in as well????????????????????????

17. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.

18. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious in nature.

19. 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”

20. 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 Claimants 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.

21. The Claimants 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.

22. The behaviour of this sector of the industry and companies like HX Car Park Management has prompted the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill 2017-19which is reaching the final stages through Parliament

23. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

24. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

25. I confirm that the facts in this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

nosferatu1001 · 19 November 2018 at 2:41PM

By "add pofa in as well", do you mean to say you are still unsure, after 3 pages, whether they ahve met POFA well enough to make the Keeper liable?

If so, then you need to get your socks on. Obviously if you lack documents its harder, but you can also check other threads by this company to see if AT THE TIME they were generallycompliant or not.

or, you point out you have no documents, at the start of the defence, so you have covered all angles you can reasonably include, and theerefore you have included lack of keeper liability.

sparkyhx · 19 November 2018 at 5:23PM

If the argument is good enough without it - then I wont include POFA cos of the inherent risk of being asked a direct question about the driver by the judge an that then clouding the decision

If people think its weak and I need to add POFA, then I have wording, but I'm concerned about the direct question of driver and whether that would then undermine the argument.

No they (HX CPM) haven't met the criteria for POFA - but my understanding from Stevey's case (which he lost) was that when the Judge asked the Keeper were they the driver and the person said yes, the non compliance to POFA became irrelevant.

Le_Kirk · 19 November 2018 at 5:45PM

Defences should be written in the third person and you've done very well throughout but you erred in para 14 where you slipped in a couple of "I'd"

Coupon-mad · 19 November 2018 at 6:09PM

Point #5 is just a sentence and part of #4, not a stand alone defence point. Add it to #4 or remove it.

Remove #13, which adds nothing.

Remove #15 as it repeats #12 which is adequate already on the authority/standing point.

Remove repetition (e.g. Thornton is mentioned twice. Only mention it once).

I'd also remove #19, #20 and #21.

The statement of truth above your signature and date should be simply:

The Defendant believes the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name

Signature

Date

And near the end, include instead a point or two about the add-on 'costs' mainly being unrecoverable, like here in their point #14:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74954766#post74954766

You might also like to use their point #13, which quotes the Supreme Court Judges in Beavis and lends itself to your case too.

sparkyhx · 19 November 2018 at 8:39PM

Thanks everyone so far - I'll amend as per Coupon-Mad

sparkyhx · 19 November 2018 at 9:04PM

remove whole of 13? Can you explain why. I thought it relevant from a 'not following the rules' point of view or am I misunderstanding - or is it covered by point #14 which is kinda saying the same thing?

Thanks

Coupon-mad · 19 November 2018 at 10:03PM

Point #2 already covers the sparse particulars.

#13 is an older version and a bit ranty.

sparkyhx · 20 November 2018 at 11:09AM

Revised version - I've added section 18 on POFA, the rest is largely the same except the removal of sections that Coupon-mad suggested. I've merged a few of the bits ive removed into earlier paragraphs.

It will be common ground that this claim refers to a private parking charge notice' (PCN) relating to a day when the Driver paid and displayed and was authorised to park.

1.1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

1.2. The Claimant has no cause for action based upon the facts of this case. Any breach of contractual terms is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant any £100 'parking charge' or any sum at all in addition to the parking tariff.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. The sign at the entrance to the site states “Please refer to the full terms and conditions located at the Pay and Display Machine”(PDT Machine).

5. Any reasonable user of a Pay and Display car park would rely on the terms and conditions stated at the time of paying at the PDT machine

6. Sign at the PDT machine states “Pay and Display Ticket must be purchased at the time of Parking”.

6.1. The Driver complied with all Terms and Condition, namely they bought a ticket at the time of Parking for the agreed tariff, and received in exchange a PDT confirming the terms, and left the site prior to expiry of the ticket. Thus the Claimant's claim must fail.

6.2. Payment for parking was made via payment machine and a ticket was issued and displayed in car windscreen.

6.3. The purchased ticket covered the parking time of 2 hrs (120 minutes) and the Driver took notice of the offered expiry time on the Pay & Display Ticket ('PDT') receipt, and left promptly.

7. The sign next to the PDT machine states “Parking charge Notices will be issued for….” And goes on to list a number of infringements. NONE of the stated rules were violated. Thus the Claimant's claim must fail.

7.1. The Driver bought and displayed a valid ticket

7.2. The Driver parked within a marked bay

7.3. The Driver did NOT exceed the maximum vehicle weight or height

7.4. The Driver left promptly before the end of the time paid for

7.5. The Driver entered the correct vehicle registration into the PDT Machine

8. The Parking Charge Notice received by the Defendant at a later date refers to the contravention “Failed to Purchase a pay and display ticket within the grace period allowed”.

8.1. As stated in both sections 2 and 3 above, there is no mention either specific or implied that there was a grace period after entry to the site in which to purchase a ticket and that a Parking Charge Notice will be issued on failure to comply. Thus the Claimant's claim must fail

8.2. The Driver did pay and display as soon as was reasonably possible given the circumstances on arrival. The car park was full on arrival and the driver had to wait until a space became available. A few minutes were taken waiting for a space, then parking, locking the car, walking over to the signs and machine and finding the change to obtain a PDT in good faith.

8.3. In Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 EGLR -154, it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach when unable to fully comply with the terms.

8.4. The above is also covered and been tested in the County Court before, and a transcript will be produced which (whilst not binding precedent) is on all fours with this case, namely (3JD08399) Parking Eye v Ms X at Altrincham 17/03/2014, where it was held that waiting is not parking and until a driver had actually parked and read the signs, there was no parking contract possible relating to any obligation on a Driver whilst looking for a parking space, to purchase a PDT.

8.5. No contract can be in force as no consideration has been offered by the claimant and accepted by the Driver as there were no parking spaces initially

8.6. If the Claimant argues that a Driver should be held to a completely different and unexpected start time (on arrival past hidden ANPR cameras) then the PDT machine terms should clearly state that 'total stay' was being calculated, and the machine should have produced a PDT with the adjusted expiry, calculated by synchronising with the data stream fed from the initial ANPR image.

8.7. Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 WLR 585 (Court of Appeal) holds good as the relevant case law, to confirm that the time of a parking licence in a car park begins when the Driver pays the money and relies upon terms printed on the PDT a the trite law position that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded, without reasonable notice before.

8.8. In the PCN, No reference was made to the disputed time interval in any correspondence and the Defendant has had to guess why a PCN was issued. In the Defendant's appeal last year (and a number of times subsequently) the Defendant has asked the Claimant to provide proof of the time period in dispute and confirm a ticket was purchased by the Driver (effectively the licence) for a time period in excess of the time on site. The Driver had no idea the Claimant was working to a hidden, undisclosed and unsynchronised timeline.

8.9. The Claimant has deliberately obfuscated the incident time in the correspondence and repeatedly ignored requests for clarification.

9. A mandatory grace period is required by the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice, (of which the Claimant was a member at the time of the alleged infringement) which states a "sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs" must be provided.

9.1. Even if there had been clear signage and the driver was able to see it, the grace time is not adequate.

10. The full Terms and Conditions printed on the PDT Machine sign are contradicted by additional signs within the site. These signs as well as contradicting the main terms and conditions, cannot be seen clearly by any driver of any car and do not meet IPC Guidelines

10.1. Additional signs that include the mention of a grace period are not visible by the driver from a car that is either waiting for a space nor are they visible from a parked car due to the size of the sign, size of font and the height and positioning. It is, therefore, denied that this element of the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract that contradicts more prominent and visible full terms and conditions of the PDT sign.

10.2. Additional signage is contradictory, the Defendant avers that the driver cannot be bound by unknown terms that become apparent only weeks later when an unexpected PCN arrives at the home of the registered keeper. The Driver was entitled to rely upon the reasonable understanding that the PDT from the machine spelt out the parking/expiry time, and that the contract began then and there.

10.3. The bar for clear parking terms on signage was set by Denning LJ in J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] referring to the well-known 'Red Hand Rule' where hidden/unknown terms were held to be unenforceable: ''Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink...with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient.''

11. With no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant is fully aware that their claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail. This case is fully distinguished in all respects, from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the decision turned on a legitimate interest and clear notices and completely different facts in a free car park.

12. Further, in order to issue and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. This Claimant has taken no steps to provide evidence that such authority existed (despite being requested to supply this information by the Defendant on a number of occasions), and that they were entitled to pursue paying drivers for a penalty for the time spent driving round before parking.

12.1. Even if the landowner contract allows for this, it is an unreasonable and unenforceable term, akin to charging a person at the point of joining a queue to obtain a ticket entitling them to (say) an hour on a golf course or tennis court - then penalising the person for an extra £100 if they rightly concluded from the information available, that they were indeed allowed the hour they paid for.

12.2. The Claimant is put to strict 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.

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

13. The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.

13.1. The Defendant refers the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and also points out that there can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-
action Conduct process, especially bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their
own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before issuing proceedings.

14. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious in nature.

15. The behaviour of this sector of the industry and companies like HX Car Park Management has prompted the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill 2017-19which is reaching the final stages through Parliament.

16. In the Defendant's case, there was no prominent contract for the defendant to read and accept. The Defendant avers that the factually-different Beavis decision confirms the assertion that this charge is unconscionable, given the facts of this case. To quote from the Supreme Court:

16.1. Para 108: ''But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85''.

16.2. Para 199: ''What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 [...] is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests. Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so.''

16.3. Para 205: ''The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.''

17. The Claimant has inexplicably added £60 in 'costs' bolted onto each and every £100 PCN, despite using a solicitor to file the claim, who must be well aware that the CPR 27.14 does not permit such 'admin' charges to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

17.1. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred and that it formed a prominent, legible part of any terms on signage, and that it was, in fact, expended. The alleged 'legal costs' on top is a wholly disingenuous attempt at double recovery, and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.

17.2. The Claimant is trying to recover additional charges such as legal costs £50.00 and court fees £25.00. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges.

17.3. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) the The Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. but

17.4. The Defendant believes that the Claimant had not incurred any damages, nor admin, nor legal costs that are not already encompassed within the inflated “parking charge” (that the Supreme Court held in Beavis, was mostly profit and more than covers the very minimal template letter cost of running a parking operation). The Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste robo-claims at all, and that the filing of yet another fact-unchecked parking claim by Gladstones is purely a daily administrative function.

17.5. 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 cost. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

18. In order to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper, the Claimant is required to comply with the strict statutory conditions set out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 The Claimant has failed to do so, and cannot, therefore, hold the Defendant liable.

18.1. The Claimant has provided no proof the Defendant was driving or parked at the location on the material date in question.

18.2. The Claimant stated in email correspondence that it was not relying on POFA in its attempt to assume the Keeper was the Driver and therefore liable. That declaration by the Claimant, thereby disregarding the legislation/lawand making up their own rulesto play by, clearly means they have no basis on which to pursue the Keeper.

19. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

20. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.

21. The Defendant believes the facts contained in this Defence are true.

OK whats my next move?

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free