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@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • northernt01
    • By northernt01 28th Mar 17, 10:24 PM
    • 28Posts
    • 11Thanks
    northernt01
    PCN from ES Parking Enforcement
    • #1
    • 28th Mar 17, 10:24 PM
    PCN from ES Parking Enforcement 28th Mar 17 at 10:24 PM
    UPDATE: Case was discontinued 2 days before court hearing

    NTK from ES Parking Enforcement

    'Permit Holders Only' Sign
    Last edited by northernt01; 01-03-2018 at 11:11 AM.
Page 2
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 16th Oct 17, 2:37 AM
    • 574 Posts
    • 678 Thanks
    claxtome
    Now I have read up on the new 'particulars' procedure and think it only applies at the 'Letter before Claim' stage LBC. Therefore it would only apply if the LBC came after Oct 1st 2017. ( Which obviously means the new procedure won't apply for your case).
    Please can another member confirm / deny if the claim form was submitted after the new rules came in can the defendant force the new Pre-Action Protocol on them even if they've acknowledged service?

    I have just re-read you whole thread and have a couple of questions which may help your defence depending on answers->

    1) I haven't seen you mention that you received a NTK. Did you receive one?
    (If you did can you post a link to a redacted (version where sensitive data is blocked out) - can host it on Dropbox or various other cloud services)

    If they had confronted the person issuing the PCN and politely offered to move the car to avoid all this. there would be a witness to this too that could support this and possibly photographic evidence
    2) Did this happen or were you just suggesting it could?
    Last edited by claxtome; 16-10-2017 at 3:50 AM.
    • northernt01
    • By northernt01 29th Oct 17, 5:20 PM
    • 28 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    northernt01
    Right so here is my draft defence, tried to remove as much as i could that i didn't feel is relevant, however, i may still have repeated myself in parts.

    I will host the NTK on dropbox and attach this

    Claxtome: in answer to your second question yes it did happen




    IN THE COUNTY COURT

    CLAIM No: CXXXXXX

    BETWEEN:

    xxxxxx (Claimant)

    -and-

    xxxxxx (Defendant)


    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 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 Claimant’s 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.

    3.
    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 Claimant are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service has 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:

    3.1 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.

    ________________________________________
    DEFENCE STATEMENT
    ________________________________________

    1) It is admitted that the defendant, Mr XXXXXX XXXXX, residing at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

    (1).
    It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

    (2).
    The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained.
    a) The Claimant did not identify the driver
    b) The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.
    c) The Claimant's increasingly demanding letters failed to evidence any contravention or clear/prominent signage.
    (3).
    The claimant might argue that Elliott vs Loake is applicable in identifying the registered keeper as the driver. This will be refuted as the Claimant has adduced no evidence at all as to the identity of the driver and Elliott v Loake was a criminal case turning on specific facts and forensic evidence as to who was driving the vehicle on the day on question. There is no similarity to this claim.
    3b. Case Reference: C8DP37F1, Stockport, Excel v Mr C

    (4).
    The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.
    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 Enforcement ltd
    (iii) The full legal identity of the landowner
    (iv) A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that ES Parking Enforcement ltd 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'.
    b) I would 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.
    (5).
    ES Parking Enforcement Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring this case.
    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 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. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim. c) Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass. d). As was confirmed in the Beavis case, ParkingEye could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).

    (6)
    a) 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 has climbed from £100 to £160. This appears to be an added cost with no apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
    b) 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.

    (7)
    The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist
    a) There were no entrance signs at all to show that drivers were entering an area of 'parking enforcement' or 'private land'. This contravenes requirement Part E Schedule 1 of the IPC code of practice
    b) The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read.
    c) Wording of signage unclear and contradicting.ie tells you you’re not allowed to park without a permit, but gives no information of how or where to obtain one. Then goes to say if you do park you agree to their terms and risk a £100 charge, as such offering you a contract for something they’re strictly forbidding in the first place.
    d) It is possible to drive into the carpark and park without seeing a sign at all due to the lack of signs and carpark layout, therefore in this instance it is imperative an entrance sign is in place to avoid any confusion.
    under
    Schedule 4 of POFA.
    e) In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Parking Eye Limited v Beavis 2015 UKSC 67) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA. f) Even if the court is minded to accept that a sign was visible, the wording on the sign was prohibitive. Unlike in the Beavis case, the Claimant offered no licence to park if ‘unauthorised’. A purported licence to stop without a permit, in exchange for payment of a ‘charge’ on the one hand cannot be offered when that same conduct is, on the other hand, expressly prohibited in the signage wording. This does not create any possible contract.

    (7)
    The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

    (a) The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

    (8)
    (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 to the original £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 Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
    c) The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
    d) Notwithstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
    e) The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal fees" not "contractual costs".
    CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

    (9) The Defendant would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished from the details, facts, and location in the Beavis case. This site does not offer a free parking licence, nor is there any comparable 'legitimate interest' nor complex contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule, as ParkingEye did in the unique case heard by the Supreme Court in 2015. Whilst the Claimant withheld any photos of the signs on site, the Defendant contends these are illegible with terms hidden in small print, unlike the 'clear and prominent' signs which created a contract Mr Beavis was 'bound to have seen'.

    (10) 6. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.
    I believe the facts stated in this Defence are true.
    • northernt01
    • By northernt01 29th Oct 17, 6:19 PM
    • 28 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    northernt01
    Signage, NTK, LBC and a response LBC attached:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/d1e0ajw4ft5ti3w/LBC%20Amended.jpg?dl=0&m=

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/htbz9634zoo2v41/Signage.jpg?dl=0&m=

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/4yjhem7pyb17ceh/NTK.jpg?dl=0&m=

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/dx346q56r12gyz7/LBC%20Reply%201%20Edit.jpg?dl=0&m=

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/86kenldvwuzzylk/LBC%20Reply%202.jpg?dl=0&m=

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/o56yw03xxa6j6dp/LBC%20Reply%203.jpg?dl=0&m=
    • northernt01
    • By northernt01 30th Oct 17, 10:59 AM
    • 28 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    northernt01
    Trying to bump this up to see if anyone could look over the defence and critique if possible
    Any help would be much appreciated
    Thanks
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 30th Oct 17, 1:22 PM
    • 574 Posts
    • 678 Thanks
    claxtome
    I have had a look at your defence.
    My comments/suggestions so far are:
    b) The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant Keeper responsible for the driver!!!8217;s alleged breach.
    c) The Claimant's increasingly demanding letters failed to show evidence of any contravention or any clear/prominent signage.
    There is a lot of duplication in the following:
    (5) ES Parking Enforcement Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring this case.
    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 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. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim. c) Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass. d). As was confirmed in the Beavis case, ParkingEye could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).
    c) The Wwording of signage unclear and contradicting. ie tells you you!!!8217;re not allowed to park without a permit, but gives no information of how or where to obtain one. Then goes to say if you do park you agree to their terms and risk a £100 charge, as such offering you a contract for something they!!!8217;re strictly forbidding in the first place.
    You need 7 (f) to start on a new line.

    (10) 6. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

    Unfortunately I can't use dropbox links at work so will look tonight to see if the NTK conforms to Schedule 4 of POFA - in terms of wording and timing.

    Just seen you edited post #1 -> After how many days from the PCN did you received the NTK?
    Last edited by claxtome; 30-10-2017 at 1:27 PM.
    • northernt01
    • By northernt01 30th Oct 17, 1:34 PM
    • 28 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    northernt01
    I have had a look at your defence.
    My comments/suggestions so far are:




    There is a lot of duplication in the following:




    You need 7 (f) to start on a new line.




    Unfortunately I can't use dropbox links at work so will look tonight to see if the NTK conforms to Schedule 4 of POFA - in terms of wording and timing.

    Just seen you edited post #1 -> After how many days from the PCN did you received the NTK?
    Originally posted by claxtome
    Thanks for your response! i will amend the defence. I haven't fully proof read it so will do that tonight. I am still looking around at other defences to see if i can add anything further to mine.

    The PCN was issued at the end of March and the NTK was received on the 11th May
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 30th Oct 17, 1:47 PM
    • 574 Posts
    • 678 Thanks
    claxtome
    The PCN was issued at the end of March and the NTK was received on the 11th May
    So it sounds like the NTK was received 28 - 56 days after offence.
    (if so the timing of the NTK is as per Schedule 4 of POFA 2012)

    I suggest you check the wording of the NTK as well according to Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 as the NTK I have received from ES was not worded correctly
    Last edited by claxtome; 30-10-2017 at 1:54 PM.
    • northernt01
    • By northernt01 30th Oct 17, 6:19 PM
    • 28 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    northernt01
    So it sounds like the NTK was received 28 - 56 days after offence.
    (if so the timing of the NTK is as per Schedule 4 of POFA 2012)

    I suggest you check the wording of the NTK as well according to Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 as the NTK I have received from ES was not worded correctly
    Originally posted by claxtome
    The NTK was actually dated 7th June. so 72 days after the PCN was issued. How much difference does this make?

    It looks like Gladstones have the date wrong too. in their response to my LBC response they said the NTK was sent to me on the 11th May but the NTK is dated 7th June. Not sure how significant this is?
    Last edited by northernt01; 30-10-2017 at 6:22 PM.
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 30th Oct 17, 6:52 PM
    • 574 Posts
    • 678 Thanks
    claxtome
    Not sure of significance of NTK being dated incorrectly when you received it on time.
    • northernt01
    • By northernt01 30th Oct 17, 7:02 PM
    • 28 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    northernt01
    Not sure of significance of NTK being dated incorrectly when you received it on time.
    Originally posted by claxtome
    I don't believe i did receive it on time. the original NTK was dated 7th June therefore placing it 72 days after the notice to driver issued 27/3.
    This doesn't comply with section 8 para 4 and 5 of POFA

    Gladstones response states they sent in on the 11th May, which doesn't match the date on the original NTK. they actually attached two copies of the NTK: one with the date of sending 07th June and the other with the 11th May
    Last edited by northernt01; 30-10-2017 at 7:12 PM.
    • northernt01
    • By northernt01 30th Oct 17, 7:14 PM
    • 28 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    northernt01
    I need to submit the defence by next Monday 6th. Can anyone suggest anything significant to add to the defence or remove?
    • northernt01
    • By northernt01 30th Oct 17, 8:16 PM
    • 28 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    northernt01
    Right so here is my amended defence: can any suggest anything i might want to add to this or remove?


    IN THE COUNTY COURT

    CLAIM No: xxxxxx

    BETWEEN:

    xxxxxxxxxx
    (Claimant)

    -and-

    xxxxxxxxxxxxx
    (Defendant)


    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 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 Claimant’s 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.

    3.
    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 Claimant are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service has 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:

    3.1 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.

    ________________________________________
    DEFENCE STATEMENT
    ________________________________________

    (1).
    It is admitted that the defendant, Mr xxxxxxxxxxxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

    (2).
    It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

    a) The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
    b) Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
    c) There was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
    d) That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
    It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.
    e) To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter
    f) The claimant might argue that Elliott vs Loake is applicable in identifying the registered keeper as the driver. This will be refuted as the Claimant has adduced no evidence at all as to the identity of the driver and Elliott v Loake was a criminal case turning on specific facts and forensic evidence as to who was driving the vehicle on the day on question. There is no similarity to this claim.
    3b. Case Reference: C8DP37F1, Stockport, Excel v Mr C

    (4).
    The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.
    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 Enforcement ltd
    (iii) The full legal identity of the landowner
    (iv) A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that ES Parking Enforcement ltd 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'.
    b) I would 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.


    (5).
    ES Parking Enforcement Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring this case.
    a) 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. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim. b) Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.
    c). As was confirmed in the Beavis case, ParkingEye could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).

    (6).
    a) 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 has climbed from £100 to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
    b) 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.

    (7).
    The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist
    a) There were no entrance signs at all to show that drivers were entering an area of 'parking enforcement' or 'private land'. This contravenes requirement Part E Schedule 1 of the IPC code of practice
    b) The wording of signage is unclear and contradicting.ie it tells you you’re not allowed to park without a permit, but gives no information of how or where to obtain one. Then goes to say if you do park you agree to their terms and risk a £100 charge, as such offering you a contract for something they’re strictly forbidding in the first place.
    c) It is possible to drive into the car park and park without seeing a sign at all due to the lack of signs and car park layout; therefore in this instance it is imperative an entrance sign is in place to avoid any confusion.
    Under Schedule 4 of POFA:
    e) In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Parking Eye Limited v Beavis 2015 UKSC 67) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.
    f) Even if the court is minded to accept that a sign was visible, the wording on the sign was prohibitive. Unlike in the Beavis case, the Claimant offered no licence to park if ‘unauthorised’. A purported licence to stop without a permit, in exchange for payment of a ‘charge’ on the one hand cannot be offered when that same conduct is, on the other hand, expressly prohibited in the signage wording. This does not create any possible contract.


    (8).
    The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

    (a) The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

    (9).
    (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 to the original £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 Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
    c) The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
    d) Notwithstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
    e) The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal fees" not "contractual costs".
    CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

    (10).
    The Defendant would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished from the details, facts, and location in the Beavis case. This site does not offer a free parking licence, nor is there any comparable 'legitimate interest' nor complex contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule, as ParkingEye did in the unique case heard by the Supreme Court in 2015. Whilst the Claimant withheld any photos of the signs on site, the Defendant contends these are illegible with terms hidden in small print, unlike the 'clear and prominent' signs which created a contract Mr Beavis was 'bound to have seen'.

    (11).
    The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

    I believe the facts stated in this Defence are true.
    • northernt01
    • By northernt01 31st Oct 17, 7:57 PM
    • 28 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    northernt01
    Can someone check that the following point in a defense makes sense or does it need wording differently please:

    (3)

    The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The notice was not issued in accordance with Section 8 paragraph 5 which states !!!8220;The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.!!!8221; The Notice to Driver was given on the 27th March 2017 and the Notice to Keeper was sent on the 7th June 2017
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 1st Nov 17, 5:35 AM
    • 574 Posts
    • 678 Thanks
    claxtome
    Can someone check that the following point in a defense makes sense or does it need wording differently please:

    (3)

    The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The notice was not issued in accordance with Section 8 paragraph 5 which states “The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.” The Notice to Driver was given on the 27th March 2017 and the Notice to Keeper was sent on the 7th June 2017
    I would suggest to add in this section to number (2) and reword as follows to make it clearer
    (2).
    It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

    a) The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA").

    (b) Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
    (i) There was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
    (ii) That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
    It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements. In fact the Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper (NTK) obligations of Section 8 paragraph 5 of POFA which states the NTK should be sent between 28 and 56 days after the Notice to Driver. The Claimant sent the Notice to Driver on 27th March 2017 but didn't send the NTK until 72 days later on 7th June 2017.

    e)(c) To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

    f)(d) The claimant might argue that Elliott vs Loake is applicable in identifying the registered keeper as the driver. This will be refuted as the Claimant has adduced no evidence at all as to the identity of the driver and Elliott v Loake was a criminal case turning on specific facts and forensic evidence as to who was driving the vehicle on the day on question. There is no similarity to this claim.
    3b. Case Reference: C8DP37F1, Stockport, Excel v Mr C
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 12th Jan 18, 5:22 AM
    • 574 Posts
    • 678 Thanks
    claxtome
    It has been over 2 months since your last update.
    Have you had any response from the court?
    • northernt01
    • By northernt01 12th Jan 18, 6:24 PM
    • 28 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    northernt01
    yes i have received a court date which is the 1st March at my local court

    I am starting to put together my evidence pack and witness statement
    does anyone have any specific advice for this?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 12th Jan 18, 7:19 PM
    • 17,980 Posts
    • 28,455 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    yes i have received a court date which is the 1st March at my local court

    I am starting to put together my evidence pack and witness statement
    does anyone have any specific advice for this?
    Originally posted by northernt01
    Lots of what you need, plus the timeline of actions you must follow are detailed in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • northernt01
    • By northernt01 20th Feb 18, 9:13 PM
    • 28 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    northernt01
    Hi,

    Are there any case transcripts available for cases involving 'permit holder only' signs where the sign was deemed to be 'forbidding' and the defendant won.

    Any help would be much appreciated

    thanks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Feb 18, 1:06 AM
    • 58,332 Posts
    • 71,857 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes, PCM v Bull and ors (in the Parking Prankster case law, Google it).

    You are late to add transcripts as evidence with your WS that had to be filed last week.
    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.

    • northernt01
    • By northernt01 21st Feb 18, 9:36 AM
    • 28 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    northernt01
    Yes, PCM v Bull and ors (in the Parking Prankster case law, Google it).

    You are late to add transcripts as evidence with your WS that had to be filed last week.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Thanks Coupon-mad,
    can i add no further documents to the skeleton argument? or can i only refer to the evidence in the Witness Statement?

    Thanks
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

4,210Posts Today

4,725Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • We all knew we'd win in the end. Never in doubt! ....walks away whistling

  • Yeeesss. Phew. Wow. Uh. Oy yoy yoy

  • It's interesting that 80% of the crowd are young women... According to the close ups we keep seeing anyway.

  • Follow Martin