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
    • mukach72
    • By mukach72 3rd Jun 19, 10:06 PM
    • 31Posts
    • 4Thanks
    mukach72
    Preparation of Defence.
    • #1
    • 3rd Jun 19, 10:06 PM
    Preparation of Defence. 3rd Jun 19 at 10:06 PM
    Hi forum,
    Just checking-in to enlighten you all of our situation and seek some advice possibly.!
    My partner received, out of the blue, notification of some parking charges relating to a small number of overstays at a well-known super market car-park, from August to December last year. My partner had no memory of parking there so a sudden demand for over 300.00 was a shock, to say the least! We wrote to PPC and their solicitors demanding SAR's, fearing personal data had been breached. Both replied eventually with details of my partners name and courtesy of DVLA, address details from our old address, from where we moved from, nearly 4 years ago, as well as information about the private land in question! This forum has been very informative since receiving these communications. I sent an adapted template letter from the forum as well as a photo copy of V5C showing our current address etc.
    Having received photos of the car, post SAR, their poor quality meant that the driver(s) cannot be identified. There were two people who had access to the car during the period of the alleged parking infringements and neither are owning up so we just gave them each a copy the paperwork and the claim amount.
    We received a County Court claim, issue date 14 May 2019 which we will defend fully. The acknowledgment of service was sent within 14 days and I am now forming the defence. I have been reading the 'Newbies' section of the forum and have a reasonable idea
    of what will form the basis of the defence but was curious as to what the more-learned members of the forum would suggest? Your opinions would be greatly appreciated!
    Thanks. Mukach 72
Page 2
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 11th Jun 19, 10:42 AM
    • 5,679 Posts
    • 7,255 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    3) why does this matter? What did forwarding the V5 prove or disprove that is relevant?
    • mukach72
    • By mukach72 11th Jun 19, 12:07 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    mukach72
    It proved who the registered keeper is, where the vehicle was registered and that the PCNs went to a different address.
    • mukach72
    • By mukach72 11th Jun 19, 12:09 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    mukach72
    If it doesn't serve my defence, should I remove it?
    • mukach72
    • By mukach72 11th Jun 19, 4:24 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    mukach72
    So heres draft #3

    In The County Court
    Case number: XXXXXXXX
    Claimant: Britannia Parking
    Defendant: XXXXXXX
    DEFENCE

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

    2. The facts are that the alleged parking contraventions occurred between August 2018 and December 2018 respectively but the Defendant receive no notification until early March 2019. This is contrary to Schedule 4 paragraphs 8(5) or 9(5) of PoFA 2012 which state specific time limits for serving a Notice to Keeper. Non-compliance means the Defendant cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver.

    3. The Defendant received no paperwork until early March, no proof was shown in the pre-trial Letter Before Claim stage and they failed to follow the oct 2017 pre-action protocols 2.1
    (a) encourage early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute;
    (b) enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure;
    (c) encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue)

    4. During the period of the alleged parking contraventions, two other persons had access to the vehicle in question but neither admitting to be driver. The Defendant has complied with his obligation under Paragraph 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 by telling the driver(s) that they are required to pay the parking charge which discharges the Defendant's liability for this claim.

    5. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct.


    6. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and the driver of the vehicle. This indicates that the Claimant has failed to identify the driver and thus 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.

    7. 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.

    7.1. In addition to the PCN penalties, for which liability is denied, the Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported ‘initial legal costs' of 160.00 ‘estimated court fees’ of 60.00 and ‘contractual costs pursuant to the PCN Terms & Conditions’ of 160.00 which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant. This would be more than double recovery, being vague and disingenuous and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.

    7.2. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs.

    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 pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

    9. It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, and as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor the other, and create no certainty of contract or charge whatsoever.

    10. Further and in the alternative, 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 reading them.

    11. The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. However, with no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant is fully aware that their claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail.

    12. The Defendant believes that the Claimant has not used due diligence before issuing court papers.

    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 stated in the defence are true,
    Name
    Signature
    • mukach72
    • By mukach72 12th Jun 19, 8:36 AM
    • 31 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    mukach72
    any thoughts on my latest draft?
    Thanks in advance...
    • Castle
    • By Castle 12th Jun 19, 10:14 AM
    • 2,362 Posts
    • 3,245 Thanks
    Castle
    What is the exact name of the claimant?
    • mukach72
    • By mukach72 12th Jun 19, 10:16 AM
    • 31 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    mukach72
    On the claim form it states :
    BRITANNIA PARKING GROUP
    LIMITED T/A BRITANNIA PARKING
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jun 19, 11:34 PM
    • 76,546 Posts
    • 89,884 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Remove this which is clearly VCS-only and wrong for a Britannia PCN:
    9. It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, and as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor the other, and create no certainty of contract or charge whatsoever.
    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
    • mukach72
    • By mukach72 13th Jun 19, 5:13 AM
    • 31 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    mukach72
    Ready for submission? draft #4
    thanks in advance!

    In The County Court
    Case number: XXXXXXXX
    Claimant: Britannia Parking Group Limited
    T/A Britannia Parking

    Defendant: XXXXXXX
    DEFENCE

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

    2. The facts are that the alleged parking contraventions occurred between August 2018 and December 2018 respectively but the Defendant receive no notification until early March 2019. This is contrary to Schedule 4 paragraphs 8(5) or 9(5) of PoFA 2012 which state specific time limits for serving a Notice to Keeper. Non-compliance means the Defendant cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver.

    3. The Defendant received no paperwork until early March, no proof was shown in the pre-trial Letter Before Claim stage and they failed to follow the oct 2017 pre-action protocols 2.1
    (a) encourage early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute;
    (b) enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure;
    (c) encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue)

    4. During the period of the alleged parking contraventions, two other persons had access to the vehicle in question but neither admitting to be driver. The Defendant has complied with his obligation under Paragraph 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 by telling the driver(s) that they are required to pay the parking charge which discharges the Defendant's liability for this claim.

    5. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct.


    6. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and the driver of the vehicle. This indicates that the Claimant has failed to identify the driver and thus 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.

    7. 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.

    7.1. In addition to the PCN penalties, for which liability is denied, the Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported ‘initial legal costs' of 160.00 ‘estimated court fees’ of 60.00 and ‘contractual costs pursuant to the PCN Terms & Conditions’ of 160.00 which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant. This would be more than double recovery, being vague and disingenuous and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.

    7.2. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs.

    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 pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation.


    9. Further and in the alternative, 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 reading them.

    10. The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. However, with no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant is fully aware that their claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail.

    11. The Defendant believes that the Claimant has not used due diligence before issuing court papers.

    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. 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 stated in the defence are true,
    Name
    Signature
    • mukach72
    • By mukach72 13th Jun 19, 11:36 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    mukach72
    my final draft #5
    recent addition 3.

    In The County Court
    Case number: XXXXXXXX
    Claimant: Britannia Parking Group Limited
    T/A Britannia Parking

    Defendant: XXXXXXX
    DEFENCE

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

    2. The facts are that the alleged parking contraventions occurred between August 2018 and December 2018 respectively but the Defendant receive no notification until early March 2019. This is contrary to Schedule 4 paragraphs 8(5) or 9(5) of PoFA 2012 which state specific time limits for serving a Notice to Keeper. Non-compliance means the Defendant cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver.

    3. The Defendant did not receive any notice from Britannia Parking relating to these PCN’s whatsoever. I would suggest there should be solid evidence of this notices were sent i.e (recorded delivery, tracking details, proof of postage) to show they had been delivered to the Defendant’s current address which is xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

    4. The Defendant received no paperwork until early March, no proof was shown in the pre-trial Letter Before Claim stage and they failed to follow the oct 2017 pre-action protocols 2.1
    (a) encourage early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute;
    (b) enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure;
    (c) encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue)

    5. During the period of the alleged parking contraventions, two other persons had access to the vehicle in question but neither admitting to be driver. The Defendant has complied with his obligation under Paragraph 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 by telling the driver(s) that they are required to pay the parking charge which discharges the Defendant's liability for this claim.

    6. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct.


    7. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and the driver of the vehicle. This indicates that the Claimant has failed to identify the driver and thus 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.

    8. 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.

    8.1. In addition to the PCN penalties, for which liability is denied, the Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported ‘initial legal costs' of 160.00 ‘estimated court fees’ of 60.00 and ‘contractual costs pursuant to the PCN Terms & Conditions’ of 160.00 which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant. This would be more than double recovery, being vague and disingenuous and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.

    8.2. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs.

    9. 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 pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation.


    10. Further and in the alternative, 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 reading them.

    11. The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. However, with no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant is fully aware that their claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail.

    12. The Defendant believes that the Claimant has not used due diligence before issuing court papers.

    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 stated in the defence are true,
    Name
    Signature

    Thanks in advance!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Jun 19, 11:42 PM
    • 76,546 Posts
    • 89,884 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    #3 has ''I'' and should be ''the Defendant''.

    I would remove this:

    8.1. In addition to the PCN penalties, for which liability is denied, the Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported ‘initial legal costs' of 160.00 ‘estimated court fees’ of 60.00 and ‘contractual costs pursuant to the PCN Terms & Conditions’ of 160.00 which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant. This would be more than double recovery, being vague and disingenuous and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.

    8.2. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs.
    And instead go for the point about fake costs in a more aggressive way, putting this lot of words (in my latest post there) as #13 onwards (numbering all paragraphs):

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=75922229#post75922229

    ...especially because the latest strike out at Southampton, was re Britannia!
    Scroll through the rest of that link and you will see.
    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
    • mukach72
    • By mukach72 14th Jun 19, 9:25 AM
    • 31 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    mukach72
    draft #6

    In The County Court
    Case number: XXXXXXXX
    Claimant: Britannia Parking Group Limited
    T/A Britannia Parking

    Defendant: XXXXXXX
    DEFENCE

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

    2. The facts are that the alleged parking contraventions occurred between August 2018 and December 2018 respectively but the Defendant receive no notification until early March 2019. This is contrary to Schedule 4 paragraphs 8(5) or 9(5) of PoFA 2012 which state specific time limits for serving a Notice to Keeper. Non-compliance means the Defendant cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver.

    3. The Defendant did not receive any notice from Britannia Parking relating to these PCN’s whatsoever. The Defendant would suggest there should be solid evidence of this notices were sent i.e (recorded delivery, tracking details, proof of postage) to show they had been delivered to the Defendant’s current address which is xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

    4. The Defendant received no paperwork until early March, no proof was shown in the pre-trial Letter Before Claim stage and they failed to follow the oct 2017 pre-action protocols 2.1
    (a) encourage early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute;
    (b) enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure;
    (c) encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue)

    5. During the period of the alleged parking contraventions, two other persons had access to the vehicle in question but neither admitting to be driver. The Defendant has complied with his obligation under Paragraph 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 by telling the driver(s) that they are required to pay the parking charge which discharges the Defendant's liability for this claim.

    6. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct.


    7. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and the driver of the vehicle. This indicates that the Claimant has failed to identify the driver and thus 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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 pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation.


    10. Further and in the alternative, 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 reading them.




    11. The Defendant believes the costs on the claim are disproportionate and disingenuous.

    11.1 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.

    11.2 Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported 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 a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

    11.3 The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

    11.4 Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.



    11.5 According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

    12. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is 100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

    13. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member Claimant and one an IPC member, yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
    13.1 ’'IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

    14. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.


    15. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

    16. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.



    I believe the facts stated in the defence are true,

    Name: xxxxxxxxxxxxx


    Signature:

    Date:
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Jun 19, 5:16 PM
    • 76,546 Posts
    • 89,884 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I would just add:
    One was a BPA member (this same serial Claimant: Britannia Parking) and one an IPC member, yet the Order was identical
    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
    • mukach72
    • By mukach72 14th Jun 19, 7:40 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    mukach72
    Is that not already included in paragraph 13. ?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 14th Jun 19, 8:29 PM
    • 17,898 Posts
    • 21,809 Thanks
    KeithP
    The suggestion is that you add the red words to para 13.

    but not added in red of course.
    .
    • mukach72
    • By mukach72 14th Jun 19, 10:35 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    mukach72
    Have added the red words, now in black of course. Is the defence finally ready to submit?
    Thanks for all the help thus far! ...M72
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Jun 19, 10:44 PM
    • 76,546 Posts
    • 89,884 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes it's good to go.

    Don't disappear.

    Winning defendants read other court threads here regularly during the process and prepare for the next paperwork & know what to do with it, from bargepole's COURT PROCEDURES thread, linked in the NEWBIES thread, so make sure you are well informed and know that defence is just the first bit!

    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
    • mukach72
    • By mukach72 14th Jun 19, 11:04 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    mukach72
    Great stuff, thank you!
    • mukach72
    • By mukach72 9th Jul 19, 10:21 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    mukach72
    Hi forum,

    I submitted my defence in time on 17/06/2019 and have heard absolutely nothing since! Have been checking MCOL daily but nothings changed! Is there anything else I should do or just wait it out?
    Thanks in advance...M72
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 9th Jul 19, 10:25 PM
    • 17,898 Posts
    • 21,809 Thanks
    KeithP
    The phone number of the CCBC is on your Claim Form, but I expect you'll be told that they are a few weeks behind.

    Ring them and find out.

    Also of course make sure the email in your 'sent' folder is safe.
    .
Welcome to our new Forum!

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

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,495Posts Today

7,154Users online

Martin's Twitter