Five year old PCN - BW Legal & Premier Parking

My wife has just received court documents relating to an alleged five year old PCN. It us the first she has heard of it (although she is no longer the vehicle keeper, we haven't moved, but often do not get our post) She has acknowledged receipt and written a SAR. Based upon other threads I have drafted the following. I (and she) would really welcome advice/critique/suggestions

Thanks

SAR issued

1.1 It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However the Claimant has no cause of action and has filed this claim without providing any information to the Defendant whatsoever.

1.2 Neither the Defendant, nor any other possible drivers, recall any 'parking charge notice' (PCN) from the any events that occurred on 2014.

2.1 The Particulars of Claim (POC) does not set out or otherwise specify the reason for the defendants’ liability arising from PCN issued by the Claimant on 2014. The absence of a concise statement of the facts leading to the Defendants alleged liability and upon which the Claimant relies is in clear breech of Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Directions, paragraph 16.4 refers.

2.2 The POC issued by the Claimants legal representative alleges that ‘despite demands having been made the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability’ arising from PCN issued on 2014. The Defendant was not aware of any action required by them as a result of any events of 2014 until receipt of the County Courts Claim Form. The Claimant has therefore been negligent in not seeking assurances that the Defendant is made aware of the PCN and/or other liabilities and given the opportunity to act by way of response. The Claimants negligence demonstrates a clear failure to comply with pre court protocols set out in the Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Directions.

2.3.1 Consequently the Defendant has no idea from the details received from the County Court what the claim is about - why the PCN was issued, what the original charge was for, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; and they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they might later be bound.

2.3.2 Based upon the POC, the Defendant believes that the Claimant has failed to comply with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 (the POFA). Although The registered keeper, the Defendant, was unaware of the PCN and cannot admit to being a driver of the vehicle in question on the date in question, as such the keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time/with mandatory wording. Specifically ‘when and how the parking offence took place’.

2.4 The vague POC discloses nothing that can lead to a claim in law. The parking event referred was took place five years ago, far too long ago to expect a registered keeper to recall the day or who was driving.

3.1 From research undertaken the Defendant “assumes” that they are being pursued having entered a contract with the Claimant for use of a car park (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 6) and subsequently overstayed a period of ‘free’ parking. The Defendant did not enter into a contract with the Claimant at any time

3.2 Had any contravention apparently taken place (and this is not confirmed),

• it can only have been that signage in and around the site in question was small, unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP)
• The proper Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Premier Park Ltd and that this chain of contracts was valid in its entirety on the date of the alleged offence

4.1In any case the Defendant has been advised that

• this Claimant may not have used compliant documents to hold a registered keeper liable for at the time
• that in 2016 the Parking on Private Land Appeals [PoPLA] determined that the signage at the site identified by the Claimant did not comply with British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP) at the time of the event. In contravention of Appendix B of the CoP the font size being 25mm was significantly less than the required 60mm.
• that the number, positioning and content of the signage at the site have been changed since the date of the event referred in the POC, viz 2014.

4.2 This case can therefore be distinguished from ‘the Beavis case’

• signage that was neither prominent nor clear by way of an ‘offer’
• signage was not compliant with the BPA CoP
• no evidence to support the legitimate interests of the Claimant in acting for the landowner through a validated chain of contracts

5. On receipt of the County Court Claim Form the Defendant has been earnest in seeking to establish the facts of the matter prior to any court hearing. Accordingly on 2019 the Defendant wrote to Subject Access Request (SAR) to the Claimant for the following:
• My personnel file
• An explanation of why you believe that I, as former keeper of Suzuki Swift [NU60 JYL] has any liabilities arising from the said event
• Images of the signs in situ on 2014 on which you rely for the claim made. This should include the date of erection and replacement together with confirmation or otherwise whether they were compliant with the BPA code of practice as at 2014.
• Confirmation the date upon which the current signs were installed with an explanation for the reason for change in signage, text, positioning and number thereof
• Any and all images that were in place on 2014, in particular at the entrance to the car park at the car park together with confirmation or otherwise whether these were compliant with the BPA code of practice as at 2014
• Any and all correspondence that you have sent subsequent to the event, both to me and any third party, including but not limited to the original PCN since 2014
• A full breakdown of the sum claimed together with a reasoned analysis of the reason for each part thereof
• Proof of the chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Premier Parking Ltd with evidence that this chain of contracts was valid in its entirety on 2014
6.1 The POFA does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. That sum cannot have exceeded the BPA CoP ceiling of £100 and the Claimant cannot recover additional charges.

6.2. The Claimant has a strict proof to show how any alleged costs/damages have been incurred and that it formed a prominent, legible part of any terms on signage, and that it was, in fact, expended. To add vague damages plus alleged 'legal costs' on top is a wholly disingenuous attempt at double recovery, and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process. The Claimant has inexplicably added a sum of £60 further to PCN Terms and Conditions suggesting that a contractual relationship existed between themselves and the Defendant, which was not the case. In any event, the Beavis case confirmed that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead their case in damages and could only collect the already inflated parking charge (in that case, £85) which more than covered the very minimal costs of running an automated/template letter parking regime.

The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name