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
    • JonSnow012
    • By JonSnow012 20th Mar 19, 7:11 PM
    • 12Posts
    • 2Thanks
    JonSnow012
    Claim Form Received from County Court Business Centre - for private parking charge notice
    • #1
    • 20th Mar 19, 7:11 PM
    Claim Form Received from County Court Business Centre - for private parking charge notice 20th Mar 19 at 7:11 PM
    Hi,

    First of all, thank you for all the support which is provided through this site and taking the time out to read this.


    I am looking for some advice on what I can do.

    I received 2 parking charge Notices from CPM (UK Car Park Management limited) for 'Unauthorised Parking' in a car park. I was not the driver of the vehicle of the time but I am the registered keeper.

    The issue date was in December 2017 and January 2018 and was for £100 or reduced to £60 if paid in 14 days. It was sent to me in a post with two pictures of my car in the letter. The reason was 'unauthorized parking'. Since then, I received another letter called 'Formal Demand' roughly after 40 days of the first letter where it says to pay £100.

    Then I started receiving DRP letters (Sometime around August 2018) asking to settle payment of £320. Following that, I received a letter from Gladstone Solicitors on Sep 17 asking me to settle payment of £320 and then another 'Letter before claim' in Oct 2017.

    As I am a student living away from home I opened the letters after the 14 day period causing it to rise from £60 to £100 taking advice from other forums, I decided to ignore them and I never contacted or reply to any correspondence thinking that they will stop. I realize now that wasn't the route to take.

    Now (March 2019), I have received a claim form from county court Business Centre, Northampton asking to pay CPM £348.50 + £35.00 court fee + £50 legal rep fee total of £433.50.

    I haven't kept all the letters only the two from the solicitors stating letter before claim.

    I believe I have a reason to fight this claim due to the driver of the vehicle at the time has said they took an exit from the car park having no visible signage. There was also no signage when entering. The car park only contained two signs which were located next to each other. Where the signage was on the other side of the car park wasn't clearly pointed out or illuminated.

    I also believe the amount which is being claimed for the driver leaving the car for such a short amount of time (Quickly popped into a shop to pick up a parcel) does not justify such a huge amount of money especially when the contractual agreement to which the driver seemed to have agreed to was not clearly visible, or stated anything regarding debt collection fees.

    Please, can you offer me advice on what to do next or? I have 9 days to acknowledge of service then submit my defense. I can upload pics of letters and photos upon request.

    Please speak to me in layman's term as I don't fully understand the process.

    Carpark name and town - 51-57 East Bond Street, Leicester, LE1 4SX
Page 1
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 20th Mar 19, 7:17 PM
    • 39,381 Posts
    • 87,854 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #2
    • 20th Mar 19, 7:17 PM
    • #2
    • 20th Mar 19, 7:17 PM
    Start by reading the guide to court written by bargepole that you will find in post 2 of the NEWBIES. This is a step by step guide from receipt of the LBC up to the court date.

    You start with the AoS saying you will defend, but do not put anything at all in the defence box, not even a full stop.

    Get pics of the site and signage as it is now, and see if you can find anything older on google street view that is more contemporaneous with the alleged event as well.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 20-03-2019 at 7:19 PM.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 20th Mar 19, 7:18 PM
    • 14,345 Posts
    • 16,326 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #3
    • 20th Mar 19, 7:18 PM
    • #3
    • 20th Mar 19, 7:18 PM
    What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?
    .
    • ShakeItOff
    • By ShakeItOff 20th Mar 19, 7:50 PM
    • 370 Posts
    • 449 Thanks
    ShakeItOff
    • #4
    • 20th Mar 19, 7:50 PM
    • #4
    • 20th Mar 19, 7:50 PM
    You're going to need to do your Acknowledgement of Service, and get cracking on your defence.

    If you answer KeithP's question, he will very kindly detail the deadlines by which you need to be submitting things.

    Definitely get reading post #2 of the NEWBIES thread, specifically the Bargepole defences. You will see that there are similar themes across the defences, and you will almost certainly want to pull the common themes into your defence.

    Lastly, if you haven't done so already, send a Subject Access Request to the DVLA and to UKCPM (both have Data Protection Officer contacts on their privacy pages on their websites). They have 30 days to furnish you with everything, so it may not arrive in time for your defence to be submitted, but that's okay. It is just as useful when you come to write your Witness Statement. There is a link to the Legal Beagles template SAR in the NEWBIES thread.
    • JonSnow012
    • By JonSnow012 20th Mar 19, 9:41 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    JonSnow012
    • #5
    • 20th Mar 19, 9:41 PM
    • #5
    • 20th Mar 19, 9:41 PM
    Thank you Fruitcake and ShakeItOff for your advice it is much appreciated. I will get reading of #2 to see similar themes and follow up on the rest of the advice you have both given.


    You're going to need to do your Acknowledgement of Service, and get cracking on your defence.

    If you answer KeithP's question, he will very kindly detail the deadlines by which you need to be submitting things.

    Definitely get reading post #2 of the NEWBIES thread, specifically the Bargepole defences. You will see that there are similar themes across the defences, and you will almost certainly want to pull the common themes into your defence.

    Lastly, if you haven't done so already, send a Subject Access Request to the DVLA and to UKCPM (both have Data Protection Officer contacts on their privacy pages on their websites). They have 30 days to furnish you with everything, so it may not arrive in time for your defence to be submitted, but that's okay. It is just as useful when you come to write your Witness Statement. There is a link to the Legal Beagles template SAR in the NEWBIES thread.
    Originally posted by ShakeItOff
    Start by reading the guide to court written by bargepole that you will find in post 2 of the NEWBIES. This is a step by step guide from receipt of the LBC up to the court date.

    You start with the AoS saying you will defend, but do not put anything at all in the defence box, not even a full stop.

    Get pics of the site and signage as it is now, and see if you can find anything older on google street view that is more contemporaneous with the alleged event as well.
    Originally posted by Fruitcake
    • JonSnow012
    • By JonSnow012 20th Mar 19, 9:42 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    JonSnow012
    • #6
    • 20th Mar 19, 9:42 PM
    • #6
    • 20th Mar 19, 9:42 PM
    My Issue date is 15 March 2019

    What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?
    Originally posted by KeithP
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 20th Mar 19, 9:46 PM
    • 14,345 Posts
    • 16,326 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #7
    • 20th Mar 19, 9:46 PM
    • #7
    • 20th Mar 19, 9:46 PM
    My Issue date is 15 March 2019
    Originally posted by JonSnow012
    With a Claim Issue Date of 15th March, you have until Wednesday 3rd April to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox link from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

    Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 17th April 2019 to file your Defence.

    That's four weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


    When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:
    1. Print your Defence.
    2. Sign it and date it.
    3. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
    4. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
    5. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
    6. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
    7. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
    8. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.
    .
    • JonSnow012
    • By JonSnow012 24th Mar 19, 11:26 AM
    • 12 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    JonSnow012
    • #8
    • 24th Mar 19, 11:26 AM
    • #8
    • 24th Mar 19, 11:26 AM
    Thanks a lot, Keith. Once completed can the defence be posted on the forums to see if it is of a good enough standard?

    With a Claim Issue Date of 15th March, you have until Wednesday 3rd April to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox link from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

    Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 17th April 2019 to file your Defence.

    That's four weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


    When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:
    1. Print your Defence.
    2. Sign it and date it.
    3. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
    4. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
    5. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
    6. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
    7. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
    8. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or [U], and then re-read post #2 of to find out exactly what to do with it.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 24th Mar 19, 11:30 AM
    • 70,394 Posts
    • 82,988 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 24th Mar 19, 11:30 AM
    • #9
    • 24th Mar 19, 11:30 AM
    Once completed can the defence be posted on the forums to see if it is of a good enough standard?
    You'll know the answer is yes when you read other similar threads (recommended).
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • JonSnow012
    • By JonSnow012 11th Apr 19, 4:48 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    JonSnow012
    Hi all, this is what I have written in my defense so far any feedback regarding would be very much appreciated. Thanks in advance.



    In the County Court at
    Mayors and City of London Court

    Claim No. XXXXXXXX
    Between
    UK Car Park Management Limited (UK CPM) (Claimant)
    and
    XXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

    Witness statement of Mr XXXXXXX XXXXX, Address: XXXXXXXXXX, date of birth XXXXXXX
    1. I am the defendant in this matter. Any evidence to my statement will be referred to the attached documents as Exhibit A01, Exhibit A02 and so on.
    2. In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.
    3. I am not liable to the claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all.
    4. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle (Reg – xxxxx) in question in this case. No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle or that I was the driver. As this event has been resurrected from over a year ago, it is not possible to expect a keeper to recall who might have been driving. At the time of the charge, the car was used by several family and friends.
    5. According to the notice to the keeper, the charges were for an ‘unauthorised parking’ on 01/12/2017 and 06/01/2018 on 51-57 East Bond Street, Leicester, LE1 4SX. UK CPM issued a parking charge notice letter thereafter to me as the registered keeper of the vehicle which I no longer have access to. No windscreen ticket in this case.
    6. The claimant then sent a follow on ‘formal demand’ letters issued which currently I do not have access to
    7. Following that, I received three ‘notice’ letters from a third-party organisation called ‘Debt Recovery Plus Limited’ for the sum of £160. The letters repeatedly use threatening language such as ‘you owed’, ‘you haven’t paid’ and repeatedly threatened that court actions can be taken against me.
    8. I then received a letter from ‘Gladstones Solicitors’ on 08.09.2018 stating that they have been instructed by UK CPM in relation to this debt. (See Exhibit A01)
    9. Seven months later I received the ‘letter before claim’ from Gladstones Solicitors. (See Exhibit A02)
    10. I attempted to respond to the letter before claim on the Gladstone’s website however was given a message stating “No references eligible”
    14. As a registered keeper, I never saw the ‘contract’ they are trying to hold me liable for.
    15. The claimant stated in the particulars of claim that ‘the driver of the vehicle incurred the parking charges for breaching the terms of the parking’.
    16. As Part B 2.2 states in the IPC code of practice “2.2 Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in a schedule 1 to the Code” I have visited the location of the alleged parking charge and have found that the signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the IPC as deviated in the following paragraphs with evidence.
    17. The signage was deficient in number, distribution, tiny wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation. Part E schedule 1 of the IPC states “You are required to provide a sufficient number of signs on each site commensurate with its size and other characteristics”
    18. There was no signage at the entrance of the road that indicates to the driver that they are entering private land (See Exhibit A03). According to the IPC code of practice “Signs should, where practicable, be placed at the entrance to a site”
    19. From the exit which the driver had taken there was clearly no sign visible leaving the driver to assume there was no parking conditions.
    20. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case.
    21. From my inspection of the signs as best I could, I found no mention of the alleged "debt collection charges". (See Exhibit A04)
    22. The sign did as state in the IPC did not identify the UK CPM as ‘the creditor’
    23. The sign did not “Advise drivers that if a charge remains unpaid for a period of 28 days after issue then an application will be made for the Keeper’s details from DVLA” as stated in part E schedule 1 – signage
    24. The claimant has not provided any evidence of a contract with the landholder that demonstrated that UK CPM had any authority to operate in the land per to the IPC Code of Practice Part B 1. - 1.1.
    25. The Court is invited to dismiss this Claim and to allow the full costs recovery order due to the claimant’s unreasonable claim as per CPR 27.14.2(g). My costs schedule will be submitted separately, depending upon whether a hearing takes place.
    Statement of Truth
    I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.
    Signature
    Date
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Apr 19, 4:51 PM
    • 70,394 Posts
    • 82,988 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    No, that's a Witness Statement. Comes later, before the hearing, with your evidence.

    Back to the drawing board - look at the concise DEFENCE examples by bargepole as linked in the NEWBIES thread and add your facts.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • JonSnow012
    • By JonSnow012 14th Apr 19, 11:32 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    JonSnow012
    Hi all, I have had an attempt at the defence statement, any feedback would be greatly appreciated!



    In The County Court!
    Claim No: XXXXXXX
    Between
    UKCPS Ltd (Claimant)

    -and-

    XXXXXXX (Defendant)

    ____________
    DEFENCE
    ____________

    1. The Defendant was the registered keeper but was not the driver of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

    2. The Defendant denies that the signs at the location followed the Claimant's trade association Code of Practice

    3. The Defendant has asked the Claimants solicitor for a site map and photographs of the signs, but nothing was provided

    4. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the capacity to take legal action in this matter

    5. The Defendant has asked the Claimant's solicitor for the documentary evidence required by its client's Code of Practice Para B (1.1) that demonstrates sufficient right to occupy the land in question. The request has been ignored

    6. Further based upon the scant and deficient details contained in the Particulars of Claim and correspondence, it appears to be the Claimant's case that:!
    a. There was a contract formed by the Defendant and the Claimant on XX/XX/2017.!
    b. There was an agreement to pay a sum or parking charge!
    c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site!
    d. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.
    e. The Claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.!

    7. It is denied that:
    a. A contract was formed
    b. There was an agreement to pay a parking charge.
    c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site.!
    d. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.!
    e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.!

    8. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100.

    9. The Defendant denies that they 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.!
    a. The amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council which is set at £70 or £35 if paid within 14 days.!

    10. In summary, the Claimant's disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

    Statement of Truth:

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

    Name
    Signature
    Date
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Apr 19, 11:32 AM
    • 70,394 Posts
    • 82,988 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Your Claimant is UK Car Park Management limited, not UKCPS (a different firm).

    I really do not like this style of defence and we stopped doing this two years ago (reiterating the Claimant's case? No thanks!):
    6. Further based upon the scant and deficient details contained in the Particulars of Claim and correspondence, it appears to be the Claimant's case that:
    a. There was a contract formed by the Defendant and the Claimant on XX/XX/2017.
    b. There was an agreement to pay a sum or parking charge
    c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site
    d. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.
    e. The Claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.

    7. It is denied that:
    a. A contract was formed
    b. There was an agreement to pay a parking charge.
    c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site.
    d. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.
    e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.
    Also this is old too, not sure where this was found but delete it. The level of Council penalty charges is not relevant (at the moment at least):

    9. The Defendant denies that they 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.
    a. The amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council which is set at £70 or £35 if paid within 14 days.
    IMHO you have not said enough about the signage or about what the driver (who you are denying is you? Good, if true) actually happened and what was the contravention alleged.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • JonSnow012
    • By JonSnow012 15th Apr 19, 4:04 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    JonSnow012
    Thank you for your response Coupon-Mad. I've taken out the parts were not relevant. What happened was the driver at the time of the incidents did not see that they were entering into unauthorised land and the signage displayed clearly on exiting which is my means to fight the case. I have explained this better in the defence now.

    In The County Court
    Claim No: XXXXXXX
    Between
    UK Car Park Management Ltd (Claimant)

    -and-

    XXXXXXX (Defendant)

    ____________
    DEFENCE
    ____________

    1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
    2. The facts of the matter are that the vehicle of registration number xxxxx, of which the Defendant was the registered keeper but, not the driver of on the material dates was parked in an unauthorised bay.
    2. The Defendant denies the charge for Unauthorised parking on the basis that the signs at the location followed the Claimant's trade association Code of Practice. Signs were not displayed clearly and prominently around the site or exits, therefore, the driver had no knowledge it was parking in an unauthorised bay.
    3. The IPC guidelines state that signage at the entrance to the site should ‘Make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land’. The signage at the entrance to the site in question does not display this information
    4. Part E schedule 1 of the IPC guidelines states, “You are required to provide a sufficient number of signs on each site commensurate with its size and other characteristics” The signage around the car park was deficient in number, distribution, tiny wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation.
    5. The Defendant has asked the Claimants solicitor for a site map and photographs of the signs, but nothing was provided
    6. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the capacity to take legal action in this matter
    7. The Defendant has asked the Claimant's solicitor for the documentary evidence required by its client's Code of Practice Para B (1.1) that demonstrates sufficient right to occupy the land in question. The request has been ignored

    8. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
    9. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
    10. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case, £100.
    11. In summary, the Claimant's disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Apr 19, 5:49 PM
    • 70,394 Posts
    • 82,988 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I think that's better - but this is not enough - replace it with the usual point that we see about 'no proprietary interest', as seen in pretty much every defence:

    6. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the capacity to take legal action in this matter
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • JonSnow012
    • By JonSnow012 15th Apr 19, 6:57 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    JonSnow012
    I have done some more research into the forums and added some more points with depth, does this sound any better and which areas do you think I need to focus more on. Thanks in advance.

    In The County Court
    Claim No: XXXXXXX
    Between
    UK Car Park Management Ltd (Claimant)

    -and-

    XXXXXXX (Defendant)

    ____________
    DEFENCE
    ____________

    1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
    2. The facts of the matter are that the vehicle of registration number xxxxx, of which the Defendant was the registered keeper but, not the driver of on the material dates was parked in an unauthorised bay.
    3. The Defendant denies the charge for Unauthorised parking on the basis that the signs at the location followed the Claimant's trade association Code of Practice. Signs were not displayed clearly and prominently around the site at the entrance or exits; therefore, the driver had no knowledge it was parking entering on to private land or parking in an unauthorised bay.
    4. It is denied that the Claimant’s signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person who would be able to read them. Not to mention the signs are also located at a distance, insufficient in number and placed high creating an illegible condition to read the terms and conditions required to enter a contract. The doctrine of contra proferentem applies and the interpretation that most favours a consumer must prevail; that being that the driver(s) did not see or accept the sum the Claimant says they did.
    a. The IPC guidelines state that signage at the entrance to the site should ‘Make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land’. There is no signage clearly displaying the parking conditions at the entrance of the site and no clear signs stating the driver is entering onto private land.
    5. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim as the signage is a “forbidding offer”, which isn’t an offer at all, which means there can be no contract.
    6. The Defendant has asked the Claimants solicitor for a site map and photographs of the signs, but nothing was provided
    7. The Defendant has asked the Claimant's solicitor for the documentary evidence required by its client's Code of Practice Para B (1.1) that demonstrates sufficient right to occupy the land in question. The request has been ignored
    8. UK Car Parking Management Ltd lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim
    9. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
    10. In the Defendant's case, there was no prominent contract for the defendant to read and accept. The Defendant avers that the factually-different Beavis decision confirms the assertion that this charge is unconscionable, given the facts of this case. To quote from the Supreme Court:
    a. Para 108: ''But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85''.
    b. Para 199: ''What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 [...] is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests. Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so.''
    c. Para 205: ''The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.''10. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case, £100.
    11. The Claimant has inexplicably added £60 in 'costs' bolted onto both £100 PCNs, despite using a solicitor to file the claim, who must understand the CPR 27.14 does not permit such 'admin' charges to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.
    a. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred and that it formed a prominent, legible part of any terms on signage, and that it was, in fact, expended. The Claimant harassed the Defendant with debt collector demands but these are sent on a no-win-no-fee basis by the likes of Debt Recovery Plus who advertise they only charge when they collect monies. To add £60 per PCN, plus alleged 'legal costs' on top is a wholly disingenuous attempt at double recovery, and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.
    b. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant had not incurred any damages, nor admin, nor legal costs that are not already encompassed within the inflated “parking charge” (that the Supreme Court held in Beavis, was mostly profit and more than covers the very minimal template letter cost of running a parking operation). The Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste robo-claims at all, and that the filing of yet another fact-unchecked parking claim by SCS Law is purely a daily administrative function.
    c. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.
    12. In Summary, it is the Defendant’s position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts claimed due to the reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.
    Statement of Truth:

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

    Name
    Signature
    Date
    • Redx
    • By Redx 15th Apr 19, 7:03 PM
    • 22,245 Posts
    • 28,131 Thanks
    Redx
    if GLADSTONES were involved in this along with the claimant UK CPM , then what has the reference to SCS LAW got to do with it ? (copy and paste error without proof reading ?)
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 15th Apr 19, 7:06 PM
    • 14,345 Posts
    • 16,326 Thanks
    KeithP
    if GLADSTONES were involved in this along with the claimant UK CPM , then what has the reference to SCS LAW got to do with it ? (copy and paste error without proof reading ?)
    Originally posted by Redx
    ...and even in a sentence that mentions 'cut & paste'.
    .
    • JonSnow012
    • By JonSnow012 15th Apr 19, 8:39 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    JonSnow012
    Apologies I completely missed that. Other than this point does everything else seem sufficient or am I far from a finished product?
    • JonSnow012
    • By JonSnow012 16th Apr 19, 8:53 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    JonSnow012
    Hi all, is anyone able to please check through my defence before I submit it? Thanks in advance.

    In The County Court
    Claim No: XXXXXXX
    Between
    UK Car Park Management Ltd (Claimant)

    -and-

    XXXXXXX (Defendant)

    ____________
    DEFENCE
    ____________

    1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
    2. The facts of the matter are that the vehicle of registration number xxxxx, of which the Defendant was the registered keeper but, not the driver of on the material dates where the driver was liable for unauthorised parking.
    3. The Defendant denies the charge for Unauthorised parking on the basis that the signs at the location followed the Claimant's trade association Code of Practice. Signs were not displayed clearly and prominently around the site at the entrance or exits; therefore, the driver had no knowledge it was entering on to private land or parking in an unauthorised bay.
    4. It is denied that the Claimant’s signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person who would be able to read them. Not to mention the signs are also located at a distance, insufficient in number and placed high creating an illegible condition to read the terms and conditions required to enter a contract. The doctrine of contra proferentem applies and the interpretation that most favours a consumer must prevail; that being that the driver(s) did not see or accept the sum the Claimant says they did.
    a. The IPC guidelines state that signage at the entrance to the site should ‘Make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land’. There is no signage clearly displaying the parking conditions at the entrance of the site and no clear signs stating the driver is entering onto private land.
    5. It is denied that the Claimant has the authority to bring this claim as the signage is a “forbidding offer”, which isn’t an offer at all, which means there can be no contract.
    6. The Defendant has asked the Claimants solicitor for a site map and photographs of the signs, but nothing was provided
    7. The Defendant has asked the Claimant's solicitor for the documentary evidence required by its client's Code of Practice Para B (1.1) that demonstrates sufficient right to occupy the land in question. The request has been ignored
    8. UK Car Parking Management Ltd lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim
    9. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
    10. In the Defendant's case, there was no prominent contract for the defendant to read and accept. The Defendant avers that the factually-different Beavis decision confirms the assertion that this charge is unconscionable, given the facts of this case. To quote from the Supreme Court:
    a. Para 108: ''But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85''.
    b. Para 199: ''What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 [...] is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests. Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so.''
    c. Para 205: ''The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.''
    11. The Claimant has inexplicably added £60 in 'costs' bolted onto both £100 PCNs, despite using a solicitor to file the claim, who must understand the CPR 27.14 does not permit such 'admin' charges to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.
    a. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred and that it formed a prominent, legible part of any terms on signage, and that it was, in fact, expended. The Claimant harassed the Defendant with debt collector demands but these are sent on a no-win-no-fee basis by the likes of Debt Recovery Plus who advertise they only charge when they collect monies. To add £60 per PCN, plus alleged 'legal costs' on top is a wholly disingenuous attempt at double recovery, and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.
    b. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant had not incurred any damages, nor admin, nor legal costs that are not already encompassed within the inflated “parking charge” (that the Supreme Court held in Beavis, was mostly profit and more than covers the very minimal template letter cost of running a parking operation).
    c. In ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] it was commented that the addition of debt collector charges would turn the parking charge into an excessive penalty, as seen in this instance
    12. In Summary, it is the Defendant’s position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit and has no real prospect of success. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts claimed due to the reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.
    Statement of Truth:

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

    Name
    Signature
    Date
    Last edited by JonSnow012; 16-04-2019 at 9:01 PM. Reason: Grammar
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

1,274Posts Today

6,876Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Have a great Easter, or a chag sameach to those like me attending Passover seder tomorrow. I?m taking all of next? https://t.co/qrAFTIpqWl

  • RT @rowlyc1980: A whopping 18 days off work for only 9 days leave! I?ll have a bit of that please......thanks @MartinSLewis for your crafty?

  • RT @dinokyp: That feeling when you realise that you have 18 days of work and only used 9 days of your annual leave! Thanks @MartinSLewis h?

  • Follow Martin