Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

    • By JONTANO 8th Mar 17, 2:53 PM
    • 3Posts
    • 2Thanks
    PCM (uk) claim, defence/counterclaim
    • #1
    • 8th Mar 17, 2:53 PM
    PCM (uk) claim, defence/counterclaim 8th Mar 17 at 2:53 PM
    Dear heroes of the parking realm,

    I would like to avail of your great advice if it is not to your inconvenience,

    I'm at the stage of CC papers, and I have already acknowledged on MCOL that I wish to defend in full. The claimant is PCM, and Gladstones are the solicitor.

    The defence is based on my parking in my own space. I am the leaseholder. My space is clearly part of the property as shown in the title register provided by the Land Register. Of course I've included other helpful information from this site in my defence, including previous cases.

    I did write to my housing association (who are also the management co.) but they say they don't intervene. I've replied a few days back saying I'll be taking legal action against them if costs are suffered by myself as result of the claim action. They've yet to respond

    Can anyone advise on counterclaims? Is it worth pursuing one at same time I return my defence. Am I better claiming against the PPC or the housing association. Or how indeed do I go about this. I am keen to claim over stress suffered and time spent building defence over time since ticket first issued (August last year), and loss of study time affecting career progression.
    What evidence would one need to produce in court to prove this.
    Basically looking for best way to fight back and close this chapter.

    Will post my defence later as needs tuning.

    Thanks for the great job you all do.
    Last edited by JONTANO; 11-03-2017 at 4:21 PM.
Page 1
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 8th Mar 17, 3:10 PM
    • 9,203 Posts
    • 8,968 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #2
    • 8th Mar 17, 3:10 PM
    • #2
    • 8th Mar 17, 3:10 PM
    Claim against both, the HA are in it up to their necks.

    You have lots to choose from, data breaches, wasting your time, trespass. If the HA are a chaity copy in The charity Commissioners. Have you read these?**SUCCESS**
    Last edited by The Deep; 08-03-2017 at 3:20 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Mar 17, 4:10 PM
    • 57,401 Posts
    • 71,014 Thanks
    • #3
    • 8th Mar 17, 4:10 PM
    • #3
    • 8th Mar 17, 4:10 PM
    Can anyone advise on counterclaims? Is it worth pursuing one at same time I return my defence. Am I better claiming against the PPC or the housing association.
    I suggest:

    - no counter-claim, concentrate on winning this case.

    - ask the DVLA by email for confirmation of who got your data and when.

    - then submit an ICO complaint using your successfully defended case after your hearing as evidence, to show they had no reasonable cause to get the DVLA data at all and have caused you significant distress by dragging you to court unreasonably.

    - then (hopefully) that 'upheld' ICO complaint plus the DVLA proof that the data came from there plus your court win, puts you in prime position to issue a strong LBCCC to both the PPC and the housing association which you could do in 6 months or a year (up to 6 years since the breach but don't hang about).

    Even better, by that time you will see some outcomes on here of what works & what doesn't work with the people who have tried DPA claims for data misuse and you can learn from them.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • By JONTANO 11th Mar 17, 12:20 AM
    • 3 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    • #4
    • 11th Mar 17, 12:20 AM
    • #4
    • 11th Mar 17, 12:20 AM
    Thanks for replies. Unfortunately I had no prior knowledge of private parking companies, and so had no idea I would get caught in this way. I therefore appealed initially (that's how they got my details), but didn't then follow through with POPLA. I only replied to the Gladstones letter before the LBC (the letter arrived a week into the 14 days not giving time to reply before they initiated small claims . I should point out that my permit was in the car but had fallen onto the floor - it was my first day parking at my property and the permits had been left by the seller, with nothing to fix it to the windscreen. Therefore I don't see how they can make out I could have entered into a contract if those involved in enforcement (The HA and PPC) hadn't personally given me the means to abide.

    How's this looking for a defence so far?

    Preliminary Matters.

    (1) The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction
    16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the
    Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade
    Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says:
    1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you
    must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you
    as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where
    applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover
    parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not
    necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an
    operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient
    right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator
    directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.

    (2). The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as
    there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars
    of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimants are
    known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service
    have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour
    is ‘Roboclaims’ and as such is against the public interest.

    Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point:
    1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of
    claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
    1. those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money
    owed £5000’,
    2. those which are incoherent and make no sense,
    3. those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not
    disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant

    On the basis of the above, we request the court strike out the claim for want of a
    cause of action.

    Statement of Defence

    It is admitted that the defendant was the driver at the time of the alleged incident.
    The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons.
    (1) The title register provided to me from the Land Registry shows the parking space as part of my property that I own, and therefore it is deemed private to me and only I have the right to park there. I consider it an act of trespass for the Claimant to issue a charge against me and pursue it in such a manner.
    (2) The Claimant has no authority to lay charge as it fetters my own rights made by virtue of the lease and title deeds that I hold to park in my space. The Claimant is hereby using my own property for their own business purposes without lawful authority to do so.
    (3) The Defendant would like to point out similar recent cases of private parking companies pursing claims against residents which were overruled, to name but a few:
    C7GF51J1 – PACE Recovery v Mr N 24/11/2016
    C7GF50J7 Link Parking v Ms P 2/11/2016 Wrexham
    C9GF8T04 NGPM v Mr S, Pontypridd CC, 2/12/2016

    (4) I received a Letter before Claim letter from the Claimant’s solicitor dated the xxxxxx and it only arrived with me on xx/xx/xx. The Claimant, demanding I reply within 14 days, did not provide me with adequate time to reply, and is another example of disadvantaging the Defendant.

    (5) The Claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim for the Defendant to be able to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged were broken have not been provided.
    i) The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred. However 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 to give rise to any debt.
    ii) The Particulars states “parking charge(s)” which does not give any specific indication of on what basis the claim is brought, and is indicative of many generic cases being filed against residents in this manner.
    iv) 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.’
    v) 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.

    (6) There was no reasonable explanation regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was for, what the alleged contract was. Nor was there anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. For example, when I wrote to the Claimant’s solicitors (Gladstones) on the xxxx and failed to receive a response to my query, which was to try to ascertain what exact terms were the basis for a charge in this specific case.

    (7) In relation to the charge itself of £xxx…I find this charge to be unreasonable and disproportionate for attempting to enjoy the comforts of one’s home.
    i) 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 due has risen from £xx to £xx. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows. 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, which in this case was £xx.

    (8) The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist and the Claimant's increasingly demanding letters failed to evidence any contravention.
    i) The signs are not immediately visible to a driver parking on my side of the car park.

    (9) The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed
    between the parties and no contract was established.
    Even if the signs had been properly displayed and accessible, the Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £xx, which would be to agree that a breach of terms and conditions of a contract had taken place

    (10) The claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case') yet ParkingEye would not have been able to recover any sum at all without 'agreement on the charge'. In the Beavis case, the £85 charge was held to be allowable to act as a disincentive in that case only, based upon very specific and unique facts in a 'complex' case involving the existence of a specific legitimate interest from the landowners regarding turnover of parking spaces and very clear, brief and prominent signs. In fact, the Supreme Court Judges observed that it would be unfair if drivers were to be penalised for parking slightly out of bay lines when causing no obstruction (this was specifically mentioned at the hearing and was clearly not something they would have allowed). Further, it was held at the Court of Appeal that a parking charge sum of £135 would fail the penalty rule. The authority for this is 'Parkingeye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1338 (17 October 2012)'.

    (11) The Defendant contends the signs in this case are illegible with terms hidden in small print, (such as how a permit needs to be displayed), unlike the 'clear and prominent' signs which created a contract Mr Beavis was 'bound to have seen'.

    Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
    • By JONTANO 11th Mar 17, 4:44 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    • #5
    • 11th Mar 17, 4:44 PM
    • #5
    • 11th Mar 17, 4:44 PM
    I am planning on submitting defence in the next day or two to meet deadline. Sorry for the poor notice but if anyone has a chance to skim it and suggest what might need re-wording or adding/removing I'd really appreciate it. If not, no worries, you've all helped me plenty so far already
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Mar 17, 5:10 PM
    • 57,401 Posts
    • 71,014 Thanks
    • #6
    • 12th Mar 17, 5:10 PM
    • #6
    • 12th Mar 17, 5:10 PM
    Yep that should do, it covers the bases. Freedoms Act though, not Freedom.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,634Posts Today

7,452Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line?

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin