Metro Inn, Walsall

Hello, would someone kindly look at this 'distilled defence' as requested by Walsall HM Courts. It needs to be submitted by 4pm 14/08/2018
Thank you in advance.


IN THE COUNTY COURT AT WALSALL
Claim No.: xxxxx
Between
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)
-and-
xxxxx (Defendant)
xx August 2018
__________

DEFENCE
__________

As previously stated to Civil Enforcement Limited (xx/xx/2017), I confirm that at the time of this alleged incident, I was the vehicle!!!8217;s registered keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (!!!8220;POFA 2012!!!8221;).
* In no way is the Defendant declaring himself as the driver of the vehicle. *

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The Defendant received no !!!8216;Notice to Keeper!!!8217; letter. The Claimant then raised their £100 parking charge to £200. It is submitted that this is merely a tactic to extract 'double money', and the Defendant is in any case not liable.
This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41



Please view the signage, used at the location:

[sign inserted here - see post #40]


I wish to make the following points:
- It is a forbidding sign.
There is no offer to park. Therefore it cannot form the basis of a contract. The offer of parking is only made to permit holders and only permit holders could therefore be bound by any contract.

- This is clear from several cases. In PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], residents were parking on access roads. The signage forbade parking and so no contract was in place. A trespass had occurred, but that meant only the landowner could claim, not the parking company.

- In UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016] it was also found the signage was forbidding and so the matter was one of trespass. The parking company did not have standing to claim.

- In Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] it was also found the signage was forbidding and so the matter was one of trespass. The parking company did not have standing to claim.

Lack of Prominence.
If the driver did not see the sign then the sign is not prominent. The charge of £100 is far from prominent.

o The BPA code of Practice Section 18 states that signs must be placed at the entrance to the car park and throughout the car park in a strictly prescribed format. This covers things such as the size of the sign, the size of the text and the text content itself.

o The way it is written suggests the rules are non-negotiable, such as; "you must also have a standard form of entrance sign" and "signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm".

o The Defendant contests the validity of these signs. Not prominent and missed.




Other Notes:

1. The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant!!!8217;s position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the legitimate interest in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.

2. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sums to the original £100 parking charge, for which no explanation or justification has been provided. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

3. For all or any of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss the Claim in its entirety, and to award the Defendant such costs as are allowable on the small claims track, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

Statement of Truth

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

;...
(Defendant)

.
(Date)

Just a word to let you all know that I finally received a letter from the court regarding my 'distilled defence.'

The Decision went in my favour; the judgement was set aside.
The CCJ has been removed from my credit file today, and I must now file more paperwork to recover the court costs of £250. I am so relieved this is all over.

Because this caused a lot of stress to me, am I able to pursue a claim for compensation? If so, what should I ask for and how should go about getting it?

I want to thank each and everyone of you for your continued support. The parking charge notices are a complete scam in most cases and it's actually legalised robbery. I am going to make a huge effort to pass on my basic knowledge and help others avoid financial traps set by these criminals.

Thanks and best wishes everyone.

Can anybody tell me what to expect as my court date is drawing closer. Thank you.

Hi KeithP, thank you for your assistance I am still a little bit confused. Here's why:

1. on August 2nd I received a letter from the county court ORDERING THAT the judgement against me be set aside. Great News! (see link) https://ibb.co/hMoFkf

2 I am then asked to fill in a questionnaire, asking if I want to pursue a small claims track. Yes I do, since I'd like my £250 court hearing costs to be reimbursed.

3. On 1st October I receive another letter (see link https://ibb.co/gsg1Qf ) which states that the claim is allocated to the small claims track. This is where I am now a bit confused. I have read the newbies link post #2. I am not sure what documentation I need to produce and a) deliver to other party, and b) to the court itself. I am only interested in getting my court fees reimbused, plus some money for time wasted when I could of been working, plus anxiety. From the letter I received, it looks like I have to take all my existing documentation back to the court (who have already set aside this case). What am I missing here? thank you so much.