PCN received from Premier Park, £100 charge for a period of 5 minutes Options

[dingleberry]

Hi there,

My SO has just handed me a PCN he has received from Premier Park as he is the RK of the vehicle in question. This charge if for being in a private car park for 5 minutes. I wondering if you could tell me if this PCN meets the conditions on POFA? I have a niggling feeling that it does and we are quite distressed about this as we are on low income as I am chronically ill and can barely afford to pay for food so certainly cannot afford to pay this. I would like to appeal but am disheartened that we won't have a chance if they have adhered to POFA. I have included a scan of the PCN and have redacted my SO's details for our protection. We also went to visit the car park to look at the signs, I will include the images. As you can see, this car park includes two residents parking spaces, the PCN shows 4 photographs of the vehicle entering and exiting the car park with close ups to the reg, but provides no evidence that the vehicle was parked in a Vets4Pets parking bay. I intended on refusing to provide drivers details and challenging on the basis that they cannot provide evidence that the driver parked in the Vets4Pets bay instead of the residential bays. I can say unequivocally to you guys that the driver would have not parked there intentionally had they seen signage but on inspecting signage I expect that it would be considered clear enough and so I am very concerned about this. Thank you.

Here is a link to the gallery with all the files:
https://postimg.cc/gallery/36v06ci06/

[Advertisement]

[ostell]

You can expand on your defence items when it gets to court but you need to have mentioned it first.

[nosferatu1001]

Then try to pare it back. It's your defence. You will NOT submit a further defence. This is it. So get it right NOW.
A court will not be interested in 16 pages of defence. Without looking at I bet it isn't SOLELY legal arguments , but chock full of narrative ? If so, that is saved for your WS - which deals with facts.

Don't mistake length for substance.

[dingleberry]

Then try to pare it back. It's your defence. You will NOT submit a further defence. This is it. So get it right NOW.
A court will not be interested in 16 pages of defence. Without looking at I bet it isn't SOLELY legal arguments , but chock full of narrative ? If so, that is saved for your WS - which deals with facts.

Don't mistake length for substance.

It’s not narrative but mostly excerpts from relevant case law that support my defence. Do I cut that out then?

[SchoolRunMum]

Use bargepole's concise defence instead, with ONE point added which talks about the facts of the car park and denies liability for whatever the Particulars of Claim say.

I agree with Umkomaas:

I really think you should have a look at legally qualified Bargepole's exemplar defence template in MSE's NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2, that hardly runs to 16 lines, let alone 16 pages.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...d.php?t=4816822

[dingleberry]

Defence attempt number 2, I hope this is better?

https://www.scribd.com/document/397846666/D...LKswoXHqH3Hk3uC

[dingleberry]

Hey guys, sorry, I was wondering if I could get some feedback on my defence? Thank you.

[nosferatu1001]

I've been away on work, and have had no chance to look at this

Hope others can do so
SRM are you out there??

[dingleberry]

The date of service was the 10th so I think I have until the 7th February but would rather send it off sooner than later so any feedback would be great.

[nosferatu1001]

No, dont rush this!
Yes yiou have until 4pm on the 7th feb

I get an error while viewing the above at work; just copy and paste it into the forum, people dont like following links.

[dingleberry]

Apologies, here you go:

Claim Number: XXXX
BETWEEN:
Premier Park Ltd (Claimant)
vs
XXXX (Defendant)
________________________________________________________________________________
Defence

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


The Defendant is and was the registered keeper of vehicle registration XXXX, which is the subject of these proceedings, at the time of the alleged parking event. The driver’s actions cannot be known, only assumed, the onus is upon the Claimant to provide strict proof that the alleged parking occurred.


The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim contradict the Notice of Keeper that was issued. The Notice to Keeper claims ‘unauthorised parking’, whereas the Particulars of Claim state ‘breach of contract’. Where the Claimant’s stance seems muddled, The Defendant can only dispute on both grounds as 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. In matters of ‘unauthorised parking’ the cause of action lies with the landowner, not with the Claimant.


The vehicle entered and exited the car park within a 5 minute period. As an Approved Operator of the British Parking Association, The Claimant is required to adhere to their strict Code of Practice. Under section 13 of the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice 2012 operators are required to provide drivers with a minimum 10 minute grace period in order to read the terms and conditions of the car park and to decide whether they are to accept the terms or not. As the driver entered and left the car park all within a 5 minute period, no contract was entered into. The Claimant states in their POPLA evidence pack that the entry grace period for this site is 5 minutes, thus by their own admission, no contractual agreement was ever formed.


The terms on the Claimant's signage are unfulfillable and forbidding. They do not provide an invitation to park on certain terms, it disallows other parking other than for Vets4Pets clients, staff, or contractors. The terms and conditions could be construed to only apply to drivers who are authorised to park, not others who are forbidden from entering the area. This is supported by three examples of case law being; ‘Parking Control Management v Bull, Lyndsay and Woolford’, ‘UK Parking Control Ltd v Sean Masterson’, and ‘Horizon Parking v Mr J. Guildford’ . This therefore means this is a landowner issue for trespass, in which the cause of action lies with the freeholder and not the Claimant. As the Claimant is acting as an agent on behalf on a named principal; being M&M Properties Ltd, they have no standing to bring a claim. This is supported by ‘Fairlie v Fenton’.


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. The Claimant is put to strict proof that this authorisation was in place at the time of the alleged parking event. It is noted that the Claimant provided an out of date, redacted contract which ended on 27th July 2017. No evidence that the offer of a rolling contract extension was agreed upon has been supplied, despite multiple requests.


The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so from a car or with any amount of ease when outside the car. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.


Furthermore, the entrance sign at the site in question fails to adhere, in a multitude of ways, to Appendix B of the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice 2012. The terms on the Claimant's signage fail to mention the use of ANPR technology, which has been utilised to capture the details of the Defendant’s vehicle. Operators are required to state their use of this technology on signage as per Section 21.1 of the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice 2012.

The car park in question contains eight Vets4Pets parking bays. The car park in question also contains two residential parking bays belonging to Flats 1 and 2 of Merry Oak House, 104B Spring Road, Southampton, SO19 2BN. These two residential parking bays require use of the same entrance as used for the Vets4Pets parking bays and also belongs to the landowner M&M Properties Ltd. The Claimant does not and did not ever have a contract in place to manage these two spaces on behalf of M&M Properties Ltd. The ANPR captured images provided by the Claimant on the Notice to Keeper do not show the car parked in a parking bay. The Defendant puts to the Claimant to provide strict proof that the car was parked in a Vets4Pets bay, rather than either of the residential bays.


The Claimant has failed to transfer liability to the keeper as the Notice to Keeper that was issued on the 18th May 2018 is not compliant with the strict terms of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 - Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges. The Claimant has shown a significant failure to state the correct timeline of liability, by using the term ‘within 29 days’ rather than the required ‘period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given’, where 'given' is specifically defined as two working days after the date posted.


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 £50, allegedly for legal representative’s costs, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. Furthermore, no Jacob Edmundson is registered with the Law Society, and neither is Premier Park Ltd registered as an organisation with an in-house legal representative. It is for this reason the Defendant requests this fee to be struck out.


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.

This post has been edited by dingleberry: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 14:10

[nosferatu1001]

Is this not the £50 for filing? If so then you need to make it clear that they have not used a solicitor to file this claim, and so the fee cannot be claimed.

[dingleberry]

Is this not the £50 for filing? If so then you need to make it clear that they have not used a solicitor to file this claim, and so the fee cannot be claimed.

They have it listed as “Legal representative’s costs”.

[nosferatu1001]

Yes, but where on the form is it listed?
In its own box, or in the PoC free text field?

[dingleberry]

Yes, but where on the form is it listed?
In its own box, or in the PoC free text field?

In a box, bottom right on the court claim form:

Amount claimed: £104.08
Court fee: £35.00
Legal representative’s costs: £50

[nosferatu1001]

Which is, as i've said, the maximum allowed to be claimed for a solicitor filing the form

SO it needs handling differently to them claiming legal reps costs elsewhere on the PoC, as there are two avenues of attack (or three if Keeper is defending) there

Here you have to state that the "legal rep. costs" fee of £50 is only available to a claimant where they have engaged a legally qualified individual to file the claim on tehir behalf. AS this claim was filed by an individual within PP who is not registered as a legally qualified person, and the company that filed the claim has no inhouse team according to X, this amount cannot be claimed. CLaiming amounts they are not entiteld to is an abuse of process, and the defendant invites teh corut to strike out the claim entirely using their case management powers.

[dingleberry]

Which is, as i've said, the maximum allowed to be claimed for a solicitor filing the form

SO it needs handling differently to them claiming legal reps costs elsewhere on the PoC, as there are two avenues of attack (or three if Keeper is defending) there

Here you have to state that the "legal rep. costs" fee of £50 is only available to a claimant where they have engaged a legally qualified individual to file the claim on tehir behalf. AS this claim was filed by an individual within PP who is not registered as a legally qualified person, and the company that filed the claim has no inhouse team according to X, this amount cannot be claimed. CLaiming amounts they are not entiteld to is an abuse of process, and the defendant invites teh corut to strike out the claim entirely using their case management powers.

Okay, is this better? I just reworded what you wrote:

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 ‘Legal representative costs’ of £50 can only be claimed where the Claimant has engaged a legally qualified individual to file the claim on their behalf. As this claim was filed by an individual within Premier Park Ltd, who is not registered with the Law Society, and the Claimant is not registered as having an in-house legal representative with the Law Society, this amount cannot be claimed. Claiming costs that the Claimant is not entitled to is an abuse of process, and the Defendant invites the court to strike out the additional cost entirely, using its case management powers.

Although Redivi did say that apparently a claimant can claim costs for an in house representative, is this correct?

A company is allowed to claim the Legal Representative fee for a claim issued by an In-house Solicitor BUT
Jacob Edmundson isn't listed on the Law Society register
Neither is Premier Park as an organisation with an in-house solicitor

[Umkomaas]

Although Redivi did say that apparently a claimant can claim costs for an in house representative, is this correct?

ParkingEye have earned millions from it! It's a standard addition in all their court claims - but if it's not challenged by the defendant, it probably just goes through 'on the nod'.

Your challenge of the add-on will be interesting.

[nosferatu1001]

"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. "

That has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THIS FEE

That would be why I did not mention it at all in my response. Remove it, as uit has nothing to do with this £50 fee

The above is ONLY used where you are challenging non-"standard" additions; such as debt collectors, or "legal costs" included in the Particulars of Claim - not these standard, itemised additions which CAN be claimed against a Keeper, if they qualify. For example, the Filing and Hearing fees that the court charegs ARE allowed against a Keeper.

I havent seen the POC yet, but IF they have tried to apply these additional costs, then you have a seperate paragraph, stating the above quoted line, and detailing which charges on the PoC are not allowed.

I am unsure why you are querying an in-house rep being allowed to claim - you have covered that, as have I. The person signing it is not a legal rep, and the company is not registered as having in house rep, meaning it cannot be claimed

Unkomass - PE actually have legally qualified people, hence they can claim it. The tactic was to point out they uissue so many claims, the legally qualified people coudl nto possibly spend more than 5 monuites on the filing - and there is no way that costs £50!

[dingleberry]

"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. "

That has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THIS FEE

That would be why I did not mention it at all in my response. Remove it, as uit has nothing to do with this £50 fee

The above is ONLY used where you are challenging non-"standard" additions; such as debt collectors, or "legal costs" included in the Particulars of Claim - not these standard, itemised additions which CAN be claimed against a Keeper, if they qualify. For example, the Filing and Hearing fees that the court charegs ARE allowed against a Keeper.

I havent seen the POC yet, but IF they have tried to apply these additional costs, then you have a seperate paragraph, stating the above quoted line, and detailing which charges on the PoC are not allowed.

I am unsure why you are querying an in-house rep being allowed to claim - you have covered that, as have I. The person signing it is not a legal rep, and the company is not registered as having in house rep, meaning it cannot be claimed

Unkomass - PE actually have legally qualified people, hence they can claim it. The tactic was to point out they uissue so many claims, the legally qualified people coudl nto possibly spend more than 5 monuites on the filing - and there is no way that costs £50!

Apologies, I misunderstood, I will remove that line. If you would like to see both the claim form and the PoC they are here: https://postimg.cc/gallery/o5danvfq/

Are there any other changes needed to be made to the defence? Thank you.

[Umkomaas]

Unkomass - PE actually have legally qualified people, hence they can claim it. The tactic was to point out they uissue so many claims, the legally qualified people coudl nto possibly spend more than 5 monuites on the filing - and there is no way that costs £50!

Hence me saying:

ParkingEye have earned millions from it! It's a standard addition in all their court claims

Rachel and Rosanna are great profit centres!