1 Big Car Park, 2 landowners, Valid parking ticket but Parking Charge Issued

1. The claimant has not provided enough details in the Particular of Claim to file a full
defence.
a) The Claimant has simply stated that a parking charge was incurred.
b) The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge.
c) 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.
d) 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 ‘roboclaim’ particulars being
incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could
give rise to any apparent claim in law.’
e) On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very
similar parking charge particulars of claim were efficient 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.

The Defendant asks that the court orders that the Claimant properly particularises the Claim Further and Better Particulars of Claim and
gives the Defendant asks leave to amend the Defence should amendments be necessary following the further particulars.

2. The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol which binds all litigants equally.
a) No initial information was sent to the Defendant for the following
(i) Full particulars of the parking charges.
(ii) Who the party was that are contracted with ES Parking.
(iii) The full legal identity of the landowner
(iv) A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that ES Parking had
their authority.
(v) If the charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide justification of this sum
(vi) If the charge was based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking
and If so to provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.
(vii) To provide a copy of the signs that ES Parking can evidence were on site and which contended formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all Photographs taken of the vehicle in question.
This information should have been provided pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct.
b) The defendant asks the court to look at consider Para 4 13-15 on non-compliance and sanction, and 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.


3. The defendant has reasonable belief that the Claimant does 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.
a) 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.
b) The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a
vehicle parking at the location in question
c) 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

4. No planning permission for signage [swap this round with para 5 - para 5 is your main defence, this is secondary]
a) The Claimant is not entitled to rely on an illegal or immoral act in order to profit from it, pursuant to the doctrine ex dolo malo non oritur actio. In this matter, the Claimant does not have planning/advertisement consent in relation to its parking signage on the land in question (which are classed as “advertisements” under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended). This is a criminal offence under Regulation 30 of those Regulations. Accordingly, as a matter of public policy the principle ex dolo malo non oritur action should apply – namely, the Claimant should not be allowed to found a cause of action on an immoral or an illegal act (in this case the unlawful signage). The rationale for this is set out in the case of Holman v Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 341 and was reaffirmed in RTA (Business Consultants) Ltd v Bracewell [2015] EWHC 630 (QB) (12 March 2015). The Defendant also relies on Andre Agassi v S Robinson (HM Inspector of Taxes) [2005] EWCA Civ 1507.
b) In addition to the criminal offence committed by the Claimant, it is in breach of various statutory and regulatory provisions set out in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (Regulation 3 – a breach of which is an offence under Regulation 5), the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Sections 62 and 68 and Schedule 2) and the Consumer Contract (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (Regulation 13). Again, the court should not lend its aid to the Claimant in founding a claim based on its unlawful and/or immoral conduct.
c) Furthermore, it must be contrary to public policy for a court to enforce a contract whereby a party will profit from its criminal conduct and the Defendant will rely on ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores [2012] EWCA Civ 1338

5. The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the Defendant even if planning permission is in place
a) Signs were forbidding in wording and not therefore capable of making any "offer", and were small in size and positioned high up on lampposts, too high to be easily seen from a car thus failing the requirements of the Code of Practice of the IPC, of which the Claimant is a member and with which it must comply CoP guidelines
b) The car park has 2 different landowners; one area owned by the local council; the other privately owned and managed by the Claimant.
c) The two different areas of the car park were not demarcated in any way and there are not signs or markings which indicate to drivers that they are passing from one are of the car park to the other, and that different rules of parking apply in each.
(i) There was no sign at the entrance to the area of the carpark managed by the Claimant, which goes against its AOS CoP guidelines
(ii) There was also no fence to stop travel between 2 areas
(iii) There were no road markings or anything at all indicating that there were two distinct areas run by different entities, in which different parking rules applied.
d) The defendant entered into the council part of the car park, where there was signage that informed him that it was a "pay and display" car park. He stopped to buy a ticket, and then drove a short distance on to park, not seeing any further signs.
e) Upon going back to the carpark after being issued with the charge which forms the basis of this Claim, the Defendant has seen the one, high up, small sign purporting to indicate that new terms applied to that area of the car park which isn't visible from a car
f) A driver who bought a legitimate ticket for Council area of car park but unknowingly ends up parking in the private area of car park can be penalised without knowing it (and vice versa). The Defendant argues this is a form of entrapment. IPC CoP Part B 14.1 says "You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance"
g) There was no offer made by the Claimant's signage, nor was there any acceptance, and no consideration flowed - these being or consideration, which are the 3 elements required to form prove the existence of a contract.

6. Threatening behaviour and breakdown/addition of costs and charges unclear
a) The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that
further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the
debt to a ‘local’ recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be
calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges of £25, and later an
extra £35, to the £100 with no evidence of how this extra charge has been calculated.
No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the
alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs.
Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were
incorporated into the small print when they were not.
b) The extra charges appear to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an
attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
c) The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs
to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
d) 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.