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
    • dk007
    • By dk007 14th Apr 19, 11:42 AM
    • 14Posts
    • 6Thanks
    dk007
    Need urgent help: County court claim private parking PCN
    • #1
    • 14th Apr 19, 11:42 AM
    Need urgent help: County court claim private parking PCN 14th Apr 19 at 11:42 AM
    Hello experts,

    I received a court claim form for parking in a private space on 15th March 2019. They had sent me PCN which I did not reply to or accepted to pay. The parking company is Euro Parking Services ltd and the solicitors are Gladstones solicitors ltd. I had filed an Aos which gave me 33 days from this date to file my defence. I requested Gladstones the following information which they did not reply to.

    Dear Sir/Madam

    Ref *****

    I have received a claim regarding these parking notices

    I no longer possess either of the parking notices or any subsequent correspondence

    In accordance with the Over-riding Objective, I require copies of all the documents and photographs that your client intends to rely on

    In addition to the parking notices and subsequent correspondence I require :

    1 The documentary evidence required by your client's Code of Practice Para B (1.1) that demonstrates sufficient right to occupy the land in question.
    2 A copy of your client's contract with Debt Recovery Plus and evidence that it paid the charges
    3 Photographs of the signs at the location and a site plan
    4 Evidence that the signs have the required planning consent or an explanation why it is not required
    5 A clear statement whether the claim is for (a) a contractual charge (b) a breach of a contract or © trespass

    I presume that you have completed the due diligence on your client's evidence prior to raising the claim and expect to receive the documents within 7 days.

    I have attached a picture of my passport for ID purposes.

    Regards,

    ------------------------------------

    I also requested for SAR which i have got reply back from and going to post the details over here. I now need to file a defence by 16th Apr 2019. I have prepared a defence, please could someone review and suggest any improvements.

    ---------------------

    IN THE COUNTY COURT

    CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

    BETWEEN:

    EURO PARKING SERVICES LIMITED (Claimant)

    -and-

    xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

    ________________________________________
    DEFENCE
    ________________________________________

    1) The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

    2) The terms on the Claimant's signage do not offer any kind of parking service to anyone who isn't in a pre-authorised vehicle or holding a permit. If there is no offer of parking then the basic requirements for forming a contract with the driver are not present (in basic terms, 'offer', 'acceptance', and 'consideration'), and no contract can be formed. If there is no contract then there is no breach, and hence no charge for a breach. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

    3) The Defendant believes, Parking in what is effectively a 'no parking' arrangement would be a Trespass issue, for which only the landholder can take action (not some parking company) and only for nominal or actual damages, not some made-up £100 charge.

    4) The Defendant denies that driver or keeper of the vehicle agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days of issue as it states on the claim form.

    5) The Defendant denies that the signs at the location were in compliance with the Claimant's trade association Code of Practice

    6) The Defendant has asked the Claimants solicitor for a site map and photographs of the signs. The request has been ignored.

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

    8) 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

    9) The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant !!!8220;was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)!!!8221;. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

    10) Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

    11). The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

    12) The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 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. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

    13) 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. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

    Name
    Signature
    Date

    Many thanks
Page 1
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 14th Apr 19, 12:07 PM
    • 12,665 Posts
    • 12,890 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #2
    • 14th Apr 19, 12:07 PM
    • #2
    • 14th Apr 19, 12:07 PM
    Complain to your MP, they are drawing up a new regulations to control these scammers.

    On 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these private parking companies. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

    Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

    Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Apr 19, 2:10 PM
    • 70,394 Posts
    • 82,989 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #3
    • 14th Apr 19, 2:10 PM
    • #3
    • 14th Apr 19, 2:10 PM
    SAR which i have got reply back from and going to post the details over here.
    Please do, so we can see what the PCN is about and where. Seems to be a permit issue but what sort of car park and why did the driver stop there, and was it just for minutes as per the C's photos?

    You obviously need to remove the forum glitches in #9, like this (it's not meant to be there and is not some sort of secret code, it's a posting error):
    !!!8221
    And re the SAR, you cannot yet post links so PLEASE don't reply ''I can't post links''.

    You can if you break the URL like every other newbie does.
    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
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 14th Apr 19, 3:05 PM
    • 14,345 Posts
    • 16,326 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #4
    • 14th Apr 19, 3:05 PM
    • #4
    • 14th Apr 19, 3:05 PM
    I received a court claim form for parking in a private space on 15th March 2019.
    Originally posted by dk007
    But what is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

    Please can you state when you did the Acknowledgement of Service?
    .
    • dk007
    • By dk007 14th Apr 19, 3:08 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    dk007
    • #5
    • 14th Apr 19, 3:08 PM
    images
    • #5
    • 14th Apr 19, 3:08 PM
    [IMG]http ://i63.tinypic.com/xfdpc4.jpg[/IMG]
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Apr 19, 3:12 PM
    • 70,394 Posts
    • 82,989 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #6
    • 14th Apr 19, 3:12 PM
    • #6
    • 14th Apr 19, 3:12 PM
    That looks like a displayed PDT from a machine, so why are they alleging no permit?

    http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=xfdpc4&s=9#.XLNNiehKjIU

    Surely they are not relying on the angle of the photos making the shaded part of the windscreen look like the PDT isn't fully displayed?

    Desperate trash - unless that PDT is not the right one for that location?

    Or was it expired, if so by how long in minutes?
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 16-04-2019 at 2:32 PM.
    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
    • dk007
    • By dk007 14th Apr 19, 3:15 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    dk007
    • #7
    • 14th Apr 19, 3:15 PM
    • #7
    • 14th Apr 19, 3:15 PM
    Issue date on claim form is 15th March 2019. Acknowledgement of Service was filed on 21st March 2019.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 14th Apr 19, 3:22 PM
    • 14,345 Posts
    • 16,326 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #8
    • 14th Apr 19, 3:22 PM
    • #8
    • 14th Apr 19, 3:22 PM
    Issue date on claim form is 15th March 2019. Acknowledgement of Service was filed on 21st March 2019.
    Originally posted by dk007
    With a Claim Issue Date of 15th March, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 17th April 2019 to file your Defence.


    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 an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep 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.
    .
    • dk007
    • By dk007 14th Apr 19, 3:43 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    dk007
    • #9
    • 14th Apr 19, 3:43 PM
    images
    • #9
    • 14th Apr 19, 3:43 PM
    Please find attached all images here.

    [IMG]http ://i66.tinypic.com/nv7cd4.jpg[/IMG]

    [IMG]http ://i68.tinypic.com/34od5ps.jpg[/IMG]

    [IMG]http ://i68.tinypic.com/2i9i39c.jpg[/IMG]

    [IMG]http ://i67.tinypic.com/2ywixa9.jpg[/IMG]

    [IMG]http ://i64.tinypic.com/35aurtl.jpg[/IMG]

    [IMG]http ://i63.tinypic.com/xfdpc4.jpg[/IMG]

    [IMG]http ://i67.tinypic.com/oset5f.jpg[/IMG]

    [IMG]http ://i67.tinypic.com/14bj6du.jpg[/IMG]

    [IMG]http ://i66.tinypic.com/28sopqt.jpg[/IMG]

    [IMG]http ://i68.tinypic.com/2uhy1au.jpg[/IMG]
    • dk007
    • By dk007 14th Apr 19, 3:49 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    dk007
    Thanks for the reply. This is just one of the images. That PDT was an old PDT, just lying inside. I have now attached all the images and posted here,
    That looks like a displayed PDT from a machine, so why are they alleging no permit?



    Surely they are not relying on the angle of the photos mailing the shaded part of the windscreen look like the PDT isn't fully displayed?

    Desperate trash. Tantamount to fraud IMHO to pursue people for this, unless that PDT is not the right one for that location?

    Or was it expired, if so by how long in minutes?
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Apr 19, 5:51 PM
    • 70,394 Posts
    • 82,989 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    One of those IMHO cowardly - and not as the legislation intended - postal PCN, (probably a self ticketer who doesn't have the balls to issue PCNs on windscreens) issued after a couple of days and POFA compliant:

    CLAIM FORM:

    http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2uhy1au&s=9#.XLNyeTBKipo


    Photos of NTK and images from that day:

    http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=14bj6du&s=9#.XLNyMzBKipo

    http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=28sopqt&s=9#.XLNyGjBKipo

    http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=oset5f&s=9#.XLNxQjBKipo

    http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=xfdpc4&s=9#.XLNxGTBKipo

    http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=35aurtl&s=9#.XLNw7TBKipo

    http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2ywixa9&s=9#.XLNwrzBKipo

    http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2i9i39c&s=9#.XLNwajBKipo

    http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=34od5ps&s=9#.XLNwNzBKipo

    http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=nv7cd4&s=9#.XLNvwDBKipo

    Euro are carrying the ICO logo on their letters! I think you should report them to the ICO, as it makes out they are accredited in some way by the ICO.

    Don't post asking what the ICO is, like some posters do. Drives us mad.

    The '£60 added contractual costs' & '£50 legal reps fee' on the claim form, do not actually exist but we've covered that on so many threads I rally can't type it out again from scratch. read other threads about Gladstones defences.

    You have not yet answered my questions from earlier; please do.
    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
    • dk007
    • By dk007 14th Apr 19, 7:29 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    dk007
    It's a private car park having parking for some offices based there. It's called Red lion Court in Hounslow. It's closed to High street, the driver went there on a Sunday to quickly collect a parcel.

    Please do, so we can see what the PCN is about and where. Seems to be a permit issue but what sort of car park and why did the driver stop there, and was it just for minutes as per the C's photos?



    You obviously need to remove the forum glitches in #9, like this (it's not meant to be there and is not some sort of secret code, it's a posting error):

    And re the SAR, you cannot yet post links so PLEASE don't reply ''I can't post links''.

    You can if you break the URL like every other newbie does.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Apr 19, 8:39 PM
    • 70,394 Posts
    • 82,989 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Sorry to ask this but why would anyone drive past 'private land' entrance signs from a scammer on a Sunday, to enter a car park, when streets nearby (like Alexandra Road, as it looks on GSV) are completely unrestricted parking on Sundays?

    https://goo.gl/maps/VrdXKgCCXhQ2

    I always ask this, and I encourage people to see the light about this scam. I don't understand why people seek out car parks, when all they are doing is loading something that can be done on street, as long as you avoid 'no loading' yellow kerb blip lines.

    Avoid private car parks like the plague (we all do). Seek out on-street parking.

    Anyway, that's a plan for the future - avoid this sort of site like the plague! A Hounslow Council PCN would have been easier to overturn...much easier, and would have been avoidable altogether by parking on a 'non-Sunday' residents' permits street.

    Re this case, that is a decent defence draft if you remove the forum glitches as I mentioned before.

    i would add to these points:
    4) The Defendant denies that driver or keeper of the vehicle agreed to pay the PCN an unknown £100 charge within 28 days of issue as it states on the claim form, given that any signage does not make any offer, any terms are illegible and fail to meet the high bar set by the 'clear and brief, very prominent' signs with the parking sum 'in the largest lettering' as was the case in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

    4.1) The fact is, the driver had no idea of any terms, not least due to large vans parked which would have obscured any signs that may have been (and the Claimant is put to strict proof) capable of being seen at Red Lion Court, where the driver was merely collecting and loading a parcel on a Sunday. The driver held the reasonable belief that loading on a Sunday in this part of Hounslow was exempt activity and unrestricted.

    5) The Defendant denies that the signs at the location were in compliance with the Claimant's trade association Code of Practice in terms of their position, number, and clarity. Where terms on signs were not seen, as in this case, there can be no £100 penalty under contract. This Claimant is known to produce template Witness Statements, disingenuously leading courts to the Respondent's argument in Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA and, critically, NOT the ratio of the judgment from Roch LJ, in which Miss Vine prevailed due to unclear signs and the fact that, even though signs existed, she did not see them. Paragraph 19 of that judgment is quite different from the general presumption that the Claimant is likely to invite the Court to make.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 14-04-2019 at 8:45 PM.
    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
    • dk007
    • By dk007 15th Apr 19, 2:29 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    dk007
    Thanks for looking the defence points and suggesting more. Most of the places on that road where parking is free were occupied by residents' cars but I take your point, it should be avoided for future. I will remove the forum glitches as mentioned by you. I was wondering, if I could be asked to provide evidence that driver went there to pick up the parcel and all? Do I need to mention anywhere (now or during the court hearing) who was the driver in case they have cctv images, what should be my stance regarding in case this question is asked at the court hearing and do I need to make a mention of it now? Also would appreciate if you can provide any links to include the defence about £60 and £50 charges as I could not find one.

    Many thanks

    Sorry to ask this but why would anyone drive past 'private land' entrance signs from a scammer on a Sunday, to enter a car park, when streets nearby (like Alexandra Road, as it looks on GSV) are completely unrestricted parking on Sundays?



    I always ask this, and I encourage people to see the light about this scam. I don't understand why people seek out car parks, when all they are doing is loading something that can be done on street, as long as you avoid 'no loading' yellow kerb blip lines.

    Avoid private car parks like the plague (we all do). Seek out on-street parking.

    Anyway, that's a plan for the future - avoid this sort of site like the plague! A Hounslow Council PCN would have been easier to overturn...much easier, and would have been avoidable altogether by parking on a 'non-Sunday' residents' permits street.

    Re this case, that is a decent defence draft if you remove the forum glitches as I mentioned before.

    i would add to these points:
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Apr 19, 5:17 PM
    • 70,394 Posts
    • 82,989 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I was wondering, if I could be asked to provide evidence that driver went there to pick up the parcel and all?
    Probably not relevant really, but it would be useful to have proof, if the parcel was being picked up from those actual premises (not if the car park was being abused while the driver went off elsewhere...).

    Do I need to mention anywhere (now or during the court hearing) who was the driver in case they have cctv images,
    Parking firms issuing windscreen PCNs do NOT have CCTV. Believe me.

    what should be my stance regarding in case this question is asked at the court hearing and do I need to make a mention of it now?
    If you were the driver then decide now if you are going to admit that in the defence. As the Judge might ask 'were you the driver?' and if so, you wouldn't lie!

    Also would appreciate if you can provide any links to include the defence about £60 and £50 charges as I could not find one.
    This one:

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=75697191#post75697191

    The bit after 'Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous' suits your case if you change the £sum to suit.
    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
    • dk007
    • By dk007 15th Apr 19, 8:08 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    dk007
    Thanks for the reply. I do not think any proof is there, do you want me to remove that part in that case? Parcel was not picked up from those premises, it was picked up from the high street next to it. Also it is not a windscreen pcn, it was sent out in the post. mentioning about the driver in the defence, does it make the case weaker or it still stands chance of winning it based on no contract was made?


    Probably not relevant really, but it would be useful to have proof, if the parcel was being picked up from those actual premises (not if the car park was being abused while the driver went off elsewhere...).

    Parking firms issuing windscreen PCNs do NOT have CCTV. Believe me.

    If you were the driver then decide now if you are going to admit that in the defence. As the Judge might ask 'were you the driver?' and if so, you wouldn't lie!


    This one:



    The bit after 'Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous' suits your case if you change the £sum to suit.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Last edited by dk007; 15-04-2019 at 8:11 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Apr 19, 3:42 PM
    • 70,394 Posts
    • 82,989 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Try this version.

    In red is where I've added or altered something (obviously change it to black!).

    Will you defend as driver, or was the D not driving?

    ---------------------

    IN THE COUNTY COURT

    CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

    BETWEEN:

    EURO PARKING SERVICES LIMITED (Claimant)

    -and-

    xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

    ________________________________________

    DEFENCE
    ________________________________________

    1) The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

    2) The terms on the Claimant's signage do not offer any kind of parking service licence to anyone who isn't in a pre-authorised vehicle or holding a permit. If there is no offer of parking then the basic requirements for forming a contract with the driver are not present (in basic terms, 'offer', 'acceptance', and 'consideration'), and no contract can be formed. If there is no contract then there is no breach, and hence no charge for a breach. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

    3) The Defendant believes that parking in what is now painted by the Claimant as effectively a 'no unauthorised parking' arrangement location would be a Trespass issue, for which only the landholder can take action (not some parking company) and only for nominal or actual damages, not some made-up £100 charge.

    4) The Defendant denies that driver or keeper of the vehicle agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days of issue as it states on the claim form. Further, the few minutes between the Claimant's photographs and the lack of any windscreen PCN served, suggests that this may have been an untrained and unauthorised 'self-ticketer' taking predatory photos for a 'bounty' payment - effectively an incentivised lurker.

    4(i). ANPR cameras were not used, and yet no windscreen PCN was placed by the person taking the images and no time was allowed for the driver to have had a fair opportunity to seek out any hidden/high signs and read the small print terms, and decide whether to stay or go, or even to obtain a permit/authorisation from the adjacent premises. It is believed that the site had no lines or markings on the tarmac to suggest there were permit-only bays.

    4)(ii). It appears that this Claimant's photographers are lying in wait at this location for purported trespassers and instead of placing clear signage and/or warning a driver to move on, they are parking (or allowing to be parked) vans in front of the signage and then taking unsolicited photos to upload to the Claimant, who has no involvement, yet remains liable for these actions. This gives a motorist no opportunity to learn of the terms by which he/she has been bound until the registered keeper receives a letter weeks later. This is not in line with the will of Parliament, which only added paragraph 9 (postal PCNs) to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') to allow for remote ANPR systems where there were no feet on the ground for a parking firm, and did not envisage this predatory scenario.

    4(iii). The Defendant interprets this conduct to be in breach of the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice ('the IPC CoP') including the section regarding: 'grace periods', 'no predatory ticketing', 'no incentives' and 'rules on self ticketing'. The Claimant has (via their solicitors, who shared Directors with the IPC in a clear conflict of interests) signed statements of truth which say they adhere to the IPC CoP. It is averred that this Claimant does not. To sign a statement of truth on the claim form when it is not correct has significant implications and indeed the Supreme Court are on record as holding a parking firm to strict compliance with their CoP, which was held to be effectively 'regulatory'.

    4(iv). The IPC has recently suspended self-ticketing for at least one AOS member and called an emergency IPC members' meeting this month (April 2019) due to predatory ticketing and serious breaches of the IPC Code of Practice by untrained and incentivised self-ticketers. Whilst the self-ticketer exposed on television for the most recent unauthorised and allegedly fraudulent conduct was not an employee of this claimant, Euro Parking Services Ltd are put to strict proof regarding whether or not an employee took these photos, when and how that person was trained and the site duly audited, and to explain why no windscreen PCN was issued, nor grace period allowed for the driver to read the signs, despite the photographer evidently standing near the car during the few minutes snatched to create the incriminating appearance of a contravention.


    5) in addition to the above breaches, the Defendant denies that the signs at the location were in compliance with the [COLOR="red"]IPC CoP and believes they were sparsely placed high on a wall or where a parked van could obscure the terms.

    5)(i) Where a driver does not see the terms, the driver cannot be bound by them and the authorities for this are (a) Vine v Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA, in which Miss Vine prevailed due to unclear signs hidden behind vans and the fact she did not see them - the judgment from Roch LJ being quite different from the general presumption that the Claimant is likely to invite the Court to make - and (b) ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) described non-prominent signs and unclear terms as creating a 'concealed pitfall or trap' and further confirmed that a non-landowner parking firm could not have pursued a sum pleaded in damages, or for trespass, which remains solely in the gift of a landowner.

    5)(ii). It is for the Claimant to show that their signage is capable of forming a contract and offering a lawful parking licence to non permit holders (and is not just dressing up possible trespass as if it were a matter of contractual agreement). The Claimant must also show that the positions of signs remain clear to all motorists before parking/leaving the vehicle for a length of time, even when vans are parked within this site.


    6) The Defendant has asked the Claimants solicitor for a site map and photographs of the signs taken on the day. The request has been ignored.

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

    8) The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

    9) The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

    10) Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

    The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 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. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

    Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
    11). CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
    (a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
    (b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

    11)(i). Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were either sent by a third party which offers a 'no collection, no fee' service, or were a standard feature of a low cost business model. The Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum is, by definition, already hugely inflated for profit, not loss, and the Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead their case in damages, as none exist.

    11)(ii). The Claimant cannot reasonably recover an additional three figure sum in damages or costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The POFA states that the maximum sum that may be recovered is the charge stated on a compliant Notice to Keeper ('NTK') - in this case £100 - and it is denied that the NTK or the signage met the high bar set in the POFA for mandatory wording and adequate notice of the charge.

    11).(iii). Even the purported 'legal costs' are made up out of thin air. No individual Solicitor has signed the Particulars of Claim - in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity - and this template roboclaim has clearly had no input from any supervising Solicitor, whether in house or externally. 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 costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated clerical staff.

    12. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety 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 Coupon-mad; 16-04-2019 at 3:49 PM.
    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
    • dk007
    • By dk007 16th Apr 19, 7:43 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    dk007
    Thanks for amending the defence.
    Try this version.

    In red is where I've added or altered something (obviously change it to black!).

    Will you defend as driver, or was the D not driving?

    ---------------------

    IN THE COUNTY COURT

    CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

    BETWEEN:

    EURO PARKING SERVICES LIMITED (Claimant)

    -and-

    xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

    ________________________________________

    DEFENCE
    ________________________________________

    1) The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

    2) The terms on the Claimant's signage do not offer any kind of parking service licence to anyone who isn't in a pre-authorised vehicle or holding a permit. If there is no offer of parking then the basic requirements for forming a contract with the driver are not present (in basic terms, 'offer', 'acceptance', and 'consideration'), and no contract can be formed. If there is no contract then there is no breach, and hence no charge for a breach. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

    3) The Defendant believes that parking in what is now painted by the Claimant as effectively a 'no unauthorised parking' arrangement location would be a Trespass issue, for which only the landholder can take action (not some parking company) and only for nominal or actual damages, not some made-up £100 charge.

    4) The Defendant denies that driver or keeper of the vehicle agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days of issue as it states on the claim form. Further, the few minutes between the Claimant's photographs and the lack of any windscreen PCN served, suggests that this may have been an untrained and unauthorised 'self-ticketer' taking predatory photos for a 'bounty' payment - effectively an incentivised lurker.

    4(i). ANPR cameras were not used, and yet no windscreen PCN was placed by the person taking the images and no time was allowed for the driver to have had a fair opportunity to seek out any hidden/high signs and read the small print terms, and decide whether to stay or go, or even to obtain a permit/authorisation from the adjacent premises. It is believed that the site had no lines or markings on the tarmac to suggest there were permit-only bays.

    4)(ii). It appears that this Claimant's photographers are lying in wait at this location for purported trespassers and instead of placing clear signage and/or warning a driver to move on, they are parking (or allowing to be parked) vans in front of the signage and then taking unsolicited photos to upload to the Claimant, who has no involvement, yet remains liable for these actions. This gives a motorist no opportunity to learn of the terms by which he/she has been bound until the registered keeper receives a letter weeks later. This is not in line with the will of Parliament, which only added paragraph 9 (postal PCNs) to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') to allow for remote ANPR systems where there were no feet on the ground for a parking firm, and did not envisage this predatory scenario.

    4(iii). The Defendant interprets this conduct to be in breach of the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice ('the IPC CoP') including the section regarding: 'grace periods', 'no predatory ticketing', 'no incentives' and 'rules on self ticketing'. The Claimant has (via their solicitors, who shared Directors with the IPC in a clear conflict of interests) signed statements of truth which say they adhere to the IPC CoP. It is averred that this Claimant does not. To sign a statement of truth on the claim form when it is not correct has significant implications and indeed the Supreme Court are on record as holding a parking firm to strict compliance with their CoP, which was held to be effectively 'regulatory'.

    4(iv). The IPC has recently suspended self-ticketing for at least one AOS member and called an emergency IPC members' meeting this month (April 2019) due to predatory ticketing and serious breaches of the IPC Code of Practice by untrained and incentivised self-ticketers. Whilst the self-ticketer exposed on television for the most recent unauthorised and allegedly fraudulent conduct was not an employee of this claimant, Euro Parking Services Ltd are put to strict proof regarding whether or not an employee took these photos, when and how that person was trained and the site duly audited, and to explain why no windscreen PCN was issued, nor grace period allowed for the driver to read the signs, despite the photographer evidently standing near the car during the few minutes snatched to create the incriminating appearance of a contravention.


    5) in addition to the above breaches, the Defendant denies that the signs at the location were in compliance with the [COLOR="red"]IPC CoP and believes they were sparsely placed high on a wall or where a parked van could obscure the terms.

    5)(i) Where a driver does not see the terms, the driver cannot be bound by them and the authorities for this are (a) Vine v Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA, in which Miss Vine prevailed due to unclear signs hidden behind vans and the fact she did not see them - the judgment from Roch LJ being quite different from the general presumption that the Claimant is likely to invite the Court to make - and (b) ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) described non-prominent signs and unclear terms as creating a 'concealed pitfall or trap' and further confirmed that a non-landowner parking firm could not have pursued a sum pleaded in damages, or for trespass, which remains solely in the gift of a landowner.

    5)(ii). It is for the Claimant to show that their signage is capable of forming a contract and offering a lawful parking licence to non permit holders (and is not just dressing up possible trespass as if it were a matter of contractual agreement). The Claimant must also show that the positions of signs remain clear to all motorists before parking/leaving the vehicle for a length of time, even when vans are parked within this site.


    6) The Defendant has asked the Claimants solicitor for a site map and photographs of the signs taken on the day. The request has been ignored.

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

    8) The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

    9) The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

    10) Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

    The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 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. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

    Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
    11). CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
    (a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
    (b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

    11)(i). Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were either sent by a third party which offers a 'no collection, no fee' service, or were a standard feature of a low cost business model. The Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum is, by definition, already hugely inflated for profit, not loss, and the Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead their case in damages, as none exist.

    11)(ii). The Claimant cannot reasonably recover an additional three figure sum in damages or costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The POFA states that the maximum sum that may be recovered is the charge stated on a compliant Notice to Keeper ('NTK') - in this case £100 - and it is denied that the NTK or the signage met the high bar set in the POFA for mandatory wording and adequate notice of the charge.

    11).(iii). Even the purported 'legal costs' are made up out of thin air. No individual Solicitor has signed the Particulars of Claim - in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity - and this template roboclaim has clearly had no input from any supervising Solicitor, whether in house or externally. 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 costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated clerical staff.

    12. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety 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
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Last edited by dk007; 17-04-2019 at 12:05 PM.
    • dk007
    • By dk007 17th Apr 19, 11:17 AM
    • 14 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    dk007
    they have put my last name first and first name last in the defendant name on the claim form, does it make any difference on the validity of the claim or should I add anything to the defence with regards to that? Also, in my defence, should i use same name as specified in the claim (last name ... first name) or correct it in the defendant name as first name .. last name or it does not matter. Also as per their SAR response, they say my first name in place of last name and last in place of first name.
    Last edited by dk007; 17-04-2019 at 11:42 AM.
    • dk007
    • By dk007 17th Apr 19, 11:41 AM
    • 14 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    dk007
    I read on these forums that 10 mins grace period should be allowed ,to enter, read the signs, decide not to accept the contract, and leave. As per their photos, the car was there only from 12.15 to 12.21 which is about 6 minutes? can anything be included with regards to that?
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

1,528Posts Today

7,208Users 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