IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
Please put me out of my misery...
Options
Comments
-
Hi,
I have used ImgBB to upload an image (Tinypic wasn't working for me). I have attached a link, hopefully that will work as I've never used it before:
hxxps://ibb.co/fRAXSa
Going to take the advice on a thread I've seen and begin drafting a defence. Will post here later for consideration! Cheers0 -
0
-
This sign is carnage:Parking is permitted for:
* Vehicles fully displaying a valid pay and display ticket in the windscreen, or vehicles with an electronic ticket purchased by phone in advance of the vehicle being left unattended, remaining valid for the duration of the vehicles stay,
In addition to the above,
* Vehicles must fully display a valid parking permit in the windscreen or have a valid electronically registered permit (applicable to individual bays where relevant)
Do you know when this sign changed?
So it appears to be Pay & Display, but for permit holders only? Which explains why the machines are still operational perhaps ...
OR
It is still a Pay & Display for all of the bays but in certain reserved or allocated bays you need a permit too (as well as paying and displaying that day) ,,,
But seriously, good luck SIP defending this sign in court ... it also fails the Beavis test for starters as the charge is hidden away in the small print and is not in the prominent different shaded area where the above confusing term is ...
mlang88 where were you parked when you got the PCN, were you in a specifically marked bay that was different to the others?
But really, SiP = Simple Intelligent Parking ... I think not with that sign.0 -
WARNING TO CAR PARK USERS!!!
Please Guys always keep your parking tickets safe...we parked in a car park in Plymouth...paid £7 yes £7 for 5 hours parking a few weeks back. We put our car registration no in the machine so were covered. Came back in good time to leave even had at least 15 mins to spare. My friend got a parking offence letter after a few days claiming we had gone over our time which we knew we had not!! We checked out Money Expert who
said not to pay as it was a scam letter so we ignored. Then another letter arrived
charging us more so we ignored that one. He had another letter threatening debt collectors if not paid by 2nd June....As l was getting worried for my
friend he rang the Car park head office
for a few words about this. They checked
everything and told him they had made a mistake!!! and would send him a letter to confirm their mistake!!! We knew we were right and did not go over our time so be warned if you park in the Lambhay car park in Plymouth. We were most annoyed...some people would pay and these scammers would happily take your money when you did nothing wrong. Be warned guys keep your parking tickets safe....this can cause a lot of unnecessary stress and now thankfully things are
sorted. Have a good day...😄😄0 -
Hi guys, thanks so much again for your consideration so far - was genuinely preparing to just hand over money on my date in court. I have used the parking prankster skeleton defence for this and taken out all that I felt might be irrelevant to my case. You might tear it to shreds though...i have included below.
Furthermore, if you need me to post a redacted claim form still I can, the proceedings are extremely short on it, only refer to a breach of terms which I have tried to get across in this defence:
IN THE COUNTY!COURT!Claim No.: *NUMBER*
Between 1
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD
(Claimant)!
-and-!
*MY NAME*!
(Defendant)!
I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the!
following reasons:!
I am xxxx of [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE], defendant in this matter.
The claim is denied in its entirety except where explicitly admitted here. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to the Claimant's case.
i. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 applies
ii. The signage presents ambiguous terms, and as such, cannot be considered breached
iii. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 applies
iv. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case
v. The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is therefore an unenforceable penalty
The claimant alleges a breach of terms of parking occurred on the 14/11/2016, however, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have never been provided. As the claimant has not provided this information, signage details have been sought by defendant in this matter. It is further claimed by the defendant, that the signage on the site in question provided ambiguous terms. The defendant can prove that on ten previous occasions, parking was paid for and accepted by the claimant under the same terms that this alleged breach of terms occurred.
i The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 applies
1. It is asserted that the Claimant’s charges are unlawful, as they are in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations!1999, specifically!regulation 8(1) of the Regulations and article 6(1) of the Unfair Terms Directive (in providing that an unfair term is not to be binding on the consumer), which is to redress the imbalance between the contracting parties’ bargaining power, and to re-establish equality between them, so that the contract terms which bind the parties are such as the parties would have agreed if they had negotiated the contract on equal terms.
2. The European Court of Justice case of!Aziz!v Caixa d’Estalvis de Catalunya, Tarragona I Manresa![2013] 3 CMLR 5 provides authority for this, and it is submitted that European Court of Justice decisions must be taken judicial notice of by lower courts in England and Wales. The test for unfairness and imbalance in that case is as follows (para 77);
Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that:
– the concept of ‘significant imbalance’ to the detriment of the consumer must be assessed in the light of an analysis of the rules of national law applicable in the absence of any agreement between the parties, in order to determine whether, and if so to what extent, the contract places the consumer in a less favourable legal situation than that provided for by the national law in force. To that end, an assessment of the legal situation of that consumer having regard to the means at his disposal, under national law, to prevent continued use of unfair terms, should also be carried out;
– in order to assess whether the imbalance arises ‘contrary to the requirement of good faith’, it must be determined whether the seller or supplier, dealing fairly and equitably with the consumer, could reasonably assume that the consumer would have agreed to the term concerned in individual contract negotiations.
3. It is asserted that the defendant had paid for parking on ten previous occasions, and displayed a valid parking ticket on each occasion and is able to prove this fact. It is also asserted that the charge made by the claimant was without forewarning, no explanation was given that these charges were invalid.
4. It is asserted that any competent solicitor would have negotiated the charge to be equal to a genuine pre-estimate of loss, being the normal legal situation provided for by the national law in force.
5. The Claimant relies on the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis. However, in that case the court applied the wrong test for imbalance (para 34 and also para 37, 38)
The judge […] held that the term did not cause a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations because the charge was no greater than that which a motorist could expect to pay for overstaying in a municipal car park.
6. It is submitted that the European Court of Justice definition of imbalance must take precedence.
7. Regulation 7 of UTCCR 1999 may also apply depending on the words of the signage.
ii The signage does not offer a contract with the motorist
8. The claim is for breach of contract. However, it is denied any contract existed.
9. The Claimant states, in their Particulars of Claim, that the driver is ‘in breach of the terms of parking’ but this is not agreed, and has been stated, it is felt that the ambiguous nature of the terms meant that an agreement would never have been reached. Thus, the necessary elements of offer and acceptance to form a contract were not present.
10. The elements of offer, acceptance and consideration both ways have therefore not been satisfied and so no contract can exist.
iii The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 applies
11. Any alleged contract would be a distance contract for services as defined in The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.
12. The regulations define three types of contracts; distance contracts, on premises contract and off-premises contracts.
13. The definitions concern themselves with how a contract is concluded (and in particular if face to face contact occurs during this process) and not where the contract is eventually performed. Thus, if a consumer books a hair styling appointment over the web, that is a distance contract even though they go to the salon for the actual styling. If they re-book at the salon, that will be an on-premises contract. If they meet their stylist in Tesco, arrange for an appointment and immediately phone the salon to confirm, that will be an off-premises contract. All these contracts are performed on-premises, but concluded in different ways.
14. The regulations define an on-premises contract as:
“on-premises contract” means a contract between a trader and a consumer which is neither a distance contract nor an off-premises contract;
15. Thus a contract cannot be on-premises if it is a distance contract. The regulations define a distance contract as:
“distance contract” means a contract concluded between a trader and a consumer under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, with the exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded;
16. This is clearly an organised service-provision scheme (for parking)
The contract is clearly concluded without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer.
There is clearly the exclusive use of one means of distance communication (signage) up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded.
17. This is therefore a distance contract.
18. Regulation 13 lists information to be provided before making a distance contract. The contract fails to provide the required information listed in Schedule 2 or a means to have a copy of the contract on a durable medium. Accordingly, 13.1 states the contract is not binding on the consumer.
iv The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is therefore an unenforceable penalty
19. The claim is for breach of contract. In such cases, it is trite law that any charge is intended to put the recipient back in the position they were had the breach not occurred. If the charge is larger, as in this case, then it is a penalty and the whole charge is unenforceable.
20. As previously explained, the parking charge amount is due to the landowner, not the claimant. The Claimant collects it on the landowner’s behalf. The Claimant has suffered no actual, or genuine pre-estimate of, loss as a result of any alleged overstay. There is no initial loss to the Claimant, and they have no standing to bring any case.
21. In any case, all costs are due to the cost of enforcement, which was established in ParkingEye v Beavis to be an average of around £18 per ticket issued. These can therefore be mitigated by taking no action. The initial charge of £35 is primarily intended as a deterrent, the £239.70 sought today by the claimant is viewed as disproportionate, and there is no social justification for this amount. It is, therefore, an unenforceable penalty.
22. The charge for breach of contract is collected on behalf of the landowner, according to clause 3.11 of the landowner contract. However, all costs for issuing tickets are borne by SIPS Car Parks Ltd. The landowner therefore suffers no loss at all. This bizarre business arrangement means that there is no cause of action.
23. The Claimant may rely on the ruling of ParkingEye v Beavis, held in the court of appeal in February 2015. This case has since been heard in the Supreme Court. Consideration should therefore be given to staying this case until the judgment is handed down.
24. Each case must turn on its own fact and the facts of that case are different to this.
25. The Court of Appeal ruled that is a charge was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss it could nevertheless be saved as a penalty if (i) there was social justification, and (ii) the charge was no more than needed to deter, which was established by comparison with council charges at that site.
26. In this case, the defendant appealed the charge of £35 on the grounds that there was no breach of terms, as the vehicle in question was clearly displaying a parking ticket as requested by the car park signage.
27. 12. The Claimant has brought a claim that discloses no cause of action. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant is abusing the court process by using the threat of action to alarm the Defendant into making a payment that is not owed.!
Therefore I ask the court to respectfully strike out this claim with immediate effect.
I believe that the facts stated in this Statement of defence, are true.0 -
Hi guys, thanks so much again for your consideration so far - was genuinely preparing to just hand over money on my date in court. I have used the parking prankster skeleton defence for this and taken out all that I felt might be irrelevant to my case. You might tear it to shreds though...i have included below.
Furthermore, if you need me to post a redacted claim form still I can, the proceedings are extremely short on it, only refer to a breach of terms which I have tried to get across in this defence:
IN THE COUNTY!COURT!Claim No.: *NUMBER*
Between 1
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD
(Claimant)!
-and-!
*MY NAME*!
(Defendant)!
I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the!
following reasons:!
I am xxxx of [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE], defendant in this matter.
The claim is denied in its entirety except where explicitly admitted here. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to the Claimant's case.
i. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 applies
ii. The signage presents ambiguous terms, and as such, cannot be considered breached
iii. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 applies
iv. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case
v. The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is therefore an unenforceable penalty
The claimant alleges a breach of terms of parking occurred on the 14/11/2016, however, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have never been provided. As the claimant has not provided this information, signage details have been sought by defendant in this matter. It is further claimed by the defendant, that the signage on the site in question provided ambiguous terms. The defendant can prove that on ten previous occasions, parking was paid for and accepted by the claimant under the same terms that this alleged breach of terms occurred.
i The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 applies
1. It is asserted that the Claimant’s charges are unlawful, as they are in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations!1999, specifically!regulation 8(1) of the Regulations and article 6(1) of the Unfair Terms Directive (in providing that an unfair term is not to be binding on the consumer), which is to redress the imbalance between the contracting parties’ bargaining power, and to re-establish equality between them, so that the contract terms which bind the parties are such as the parties would have agreed if they had negotiated the contract on equal terms.
2. The European Court of Justice case of!Aziz!v Caixa d’Estalvis de Catalunya, Tarragona I Manresa![2013] 3 CMLR 5 provides authority for this, and it is submitted that European Court of Justice decisions must be taken judicial notice of by lower courts in England and Wales. The test for unfairness and imbalance in that case is as follows (para 77);
Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that:
– the concept of ‘significant imbalance’ to the detriment of the consumer must be assessed in the light of an analysis of the rules of national law applicable in the absence of any agreement between the parties, in order to determine whether, and if so to what extent, the contract places the consumer in a less favourable legal situation than that provided for by the national law in force. To that end, an assessment of the legal situation of that consumer having regard to the means at his disposal, under national law, to prevent continued use of unfair terms, should also be carried out;
– in order to assess whether the imbalance arises ‘contrary to the requirement of good faith’, it must be determined whether the seller or supplier, dealing fairly and equitably with the consumer, could reasonably assume that the consumer would have agreed to the term concerned in individual contract negotiations.
3. It is asserted that the defendant had paid for parking on ten previous occasions, and displayed a valid parking ticket on each occasion and is able to prove this fact. It is also asserted that the charge made by the claimant was without forewarning, no explanation was given that these charges were invalid.
4. It is asserted that any competent solicitor would have negotiated the charge to be equal to a genuine pre-estimate of loss, being the normal legal situation provided for by the national law in force.
5. The Claimant relies on the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis. However, in that case the court applied the wrong test for imbalance (para 34 and also para 37, 38)
The judge […] held that the term did not cause a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations because the charge was no greater than that which a motorist could expect to pay for overstaying in a municipal car park.
6. It is submitted that the European Court of Justice definition of imbalance must take precedence.
7. Regulation 7 of UTCCR 1999 may also apply depending on the words of the signage.
ii The signage does not offer a contract with the motorist
8. The claim is for breach of contract. However, it is denied any contract existed.
9. The Claimant states, in their Particulars of Claim, that the driver is ‘in breach of the terms of parking’ but this is not agreed, and has been stated, it is felt that the ambiguous nature of the terms meant that an agreement would never have been reached. Thus, the necessary elements of offer and acceptance to form a contract were not present.
10. The elements of offer, acceptance and consideration both ways have therefore not been satisfied and so no contract can exist.
iii The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 applies
11. Any alleged contract would be a distance contract for services as defined in The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.
12. The regulations define three types of contracts; distance contracts, on premises contract and off-premises contracts.
13. The definitions concern themselves with how a contract is concluded (and in particular if face to face contact occurs during this process) and not where the contract is eventually performed. Thus, if a consumer books a hair styling appointment over the web, that is a distance contract even though they go to the salon for the actual styling. If they re-book at the salon, that will be an on-premises contract. If they meet their stylist in Tesco, arrange for an appointment and immediately phone the salon to confirm, that will be an off-premises contract. All these contracts are performed on-premises, but concluded in different ways.
14. The regulations define an on-premises contract as:
“on-premises contract” means a contract between a trader and a consumer which is neither a distance contract nor an off-premises contract;
15. Thus a contract cannot be on-premises if it is a distance contract. The regulations define a distance contract as:
“distance contract” means a contract concluded between a trader and a consumer under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, with the exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded;
16. This is clearly an organised service-provision scheme (for parking)
The contract is clearly concluded without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer.
There is clearly the exclusive use of one means of distance communication (signage) up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded.
17. This is therefore a distance contract.
18. Regulation 13 lists information to be provided before making a distance contract. The contract fails to provide the required information listed in Schedule 2 or a means to have a copy of the contract on a durable medium. Accordingly, 13.1 states the contract is not binding on the consumer.
iv The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is therefore an unenforceable penalty
19. The claim is for breach of contract. In such cases, it is trite law that any charge is intended to put the recipient back in the position they were had the breach not occurred. If the charge is larger, as in this case, then it is a penalty and the whole charge is unenforceable.
20. As previously explained, the parking charge amount is due to the landowner, not the claimant. The Claimant collects it on the landowner’s behalf. The Claimant has suffered no actual, or genuine pre-estimate of, loss as a result of any alleged overstay. There is no initial loss to the Claimant, and they have no standing to bring any case.
21. In any case, all costs are due to the cost of enforcement, which was established in ParkingEye v Beavis to be an average of around £18 per ticket issued. These can therefore be mitigated by taking no action. The initial charge of £35 is primarily intended as a deterrent, the £239.70 sought today by the claimant is viewed as disproportionate, and there is no social justification for this amount. It is, therefore, an unenforceable penalty.
22. The charge for breach of contract is collected on behalf of the landowner, according to clause 3.11 of the landowner contract. However, all costs for issuing tickets are borne by SIPS Car Parks Ltd. The landowner therefore suffers no loss at all. This bizarre business arrangement means that there is no cause of action.
23. The Claimant may rely on the ruling of ParkingEye v Beavis, held in the court of appeal in February 2015. This case has since been heard in the Supreme Court. Consideration should therefore be given to staying this case until the judgment is handed down.
24. Each case must turn on its own fact and the facts of that case are different to this.
25. The Court of Appeal ruled that is a charge was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss it could nevertheless be saved as a penalty if (i) there was social justification, and (ii) the charge was no more than needed to deter, which was established by comparison with council charges at that site.
26. In this case, the defendant appealed the charge of £35 on the grounds that there was no breach of terms, as the vehicle in question was clearly displaying a parking ticket as requested by the car park signage.
27. 12. The Claimant has brought a claim that discloses no cause of action. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant is abusing the court process by using the threat of action to alarm the Defendant into making a payment that is not owed.!
Therefore I ask the court to respectfully strike out this claim with immediate effect.
I believe that the facts stated in this Statement of defence, are true.0 -
Sorry but that defence is far too old, you can't use that. Rip it up.
You have also copied the heading which isn't even about SIP!Between 1
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD
What? That makes no sense at all.
Please read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread for more up to date defences. You also need to start by setting out the issues about the ambiguous sign change and the fact that the P&D machines still exist and have NOT been marked to tell regulars that they also now need a permit as well, or maybe they have to be psychic...!
Your defence needs to start by telling the Judge the facts. However, you said this in your first post:(I've got a court date - SIPS & Gladstones)
So, you are not at defence stage. I hope your court date is not imminent and you haven't missed your deadline to file your evidence. You must be at Witness Statement and evidence stage (again, all covered in that NEWBIES post #2).PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »Sorry but that defence is far too old, you can't use that. Rip it up.
You have also copied the heading which isn't even about SIP!
What? That makes no sense at all.
Please read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread for more up to date defences. You also need to start by setting out the issues about the ambiguous sign change and the fact that the P&D machines still exist and have NOT been marked to tell regulars that they also now need a permit as well, or maybe they have to be psychic...!
Your defence needs to start by telling the Judge the facts. However, you said this in your first post:
So, you are not at defence stage. I hope your court date is not imminent and you haven't missed your deadline to file your evidence. You must be at Witness Statement and evidence stage (again, all covered in that NEWBIES post #2).
To be honest, and as you can probably tell, I don't really know where to start with this kind of thing. Read the newbies post on this thing and couldn't find a template to work off, I'll try again tomorrow using one of the templates and considering your suggestions.
Just to clarify, I HAVEN'T got a court date that was a mistake on my part, I have a claim form and have until Monday to submit a defence.
Would also like to clarify - is Beavis still a relevant case to reference, feel like I have seen conflicting arguments on this?
Thanks, will post again tomorrow evening and hopefully make a better attempt at it.0 -
You have an MCOL (Money Claim On Line) from Northampton? If so what are your deadline dates from that MCOL. Please put them up here so C-M and others know what we are working to and what stage we are at.Just to clarify, I HAVEN'T got a court date that was a mistake on my part, I have a claim form and have until Monday to submit a defence.0 -
Did you acknowledge the claim via MCOL, as post #2 of the NEWBIES thread tells you how?
And what dates are involved, as safarmuk asked, we need to know?PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards