PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

ES/Gladstones LBC/claim form
cristalfiona
post Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 12:45
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 14 Nov 2018
Member No.: 100,936



Hello all, I hope you can help. And sorry this is so long! I wanted to get all of the information in together if possible. It is also posted on MSE so apologies if you're seeing it for the second time.

The date of the alleged offence, as per the LBC and claim form was 3rd Feb this year, which was a Saturday. The location of the parking area is an apron in front of the building the driver used to work in. The driver typically worked Mon-Fri, using another car park when required, and would only have used this apron for out of hours working. The parking area requires a permit, and I assume this is the basis they’re claiming on, though it doesn’t specify on the claim form. The company only had 2 passes for contractors/out-of-hours staff, so anyone using the parking area had to park their car, then go into the office and collect the pass and place it in their windscreen. They would then have had to reverse the process when leaving. On the day in question, no PCN was left on the vehicle, and no NTK was ever received by myself.
I received the LBC through the post in September (while I was away), however having received nothing before it, when I came back I thought it was junk and did nothing about it and have now received the claim form. The claim form is dated 2nd Nov. I have done the AOS and now need to build my defence.

After receiving the claim form, I visited the building to take pictures. I expected to have seen cameras due to the lack of PCN (as I never received the NTK I have no idea how any photos of the car would have been taken), but there were none. Unless they have since been removed (unlikely!), this means that any photos were taken by a person, in the few minutes the driver was in the building either retrieving or returning the pass. This must have been done very swiftly as the parking officer was gone before the driver returned to the car (likely the reason for lack of PCN).

The Particulars of Claim box states “The driver of the vehicle registration XXX incurred the parking charge(s) on [date] for breaching the terms of parking at [place]. The Defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the vehicle. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £160 for parking charges/damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £8.39 pursuant to s69 of the Count Courts Act 1984 at 8%pa, continuing to Judgment at £0.04 per day.”
It’s ES Parking Enforcement Ltd and Gladstones.

Does anyone have any advice on what defence to use? Can I use the fact that no notice to keeper was ever received and the first I heard of it was the solicitor’s letter in September, more than 7 months after the alleged offence? Or the vague claim details on the claim form? I’m unsure if signage would be a possible one, I need to go back and take more pictures from where the car would probably have been.
As I haven’t received an NTK, should I put in an SAR to see the photos etc (even though I am unlikely to receive it before putting in my defence)? As I currently have no idea what they have in terms of photos or evidence.

It is possible the driver’s boss could be convinced to make a statement re the parking permit situation, but anything involving the building owner is a no-go. And would it be better to put in a driver defence/witness statement so that the driver can provide information on what happened? Although the driver cannot remember the day in question as it was completely uneventful from their point of view and was now more than half a year ago.

TIA for any help!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 18)
Advertisement
post Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 12:45
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 13:28
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Everything and more goes in the defence

1) No keeper liability as no NtK was ever recieved. First notice was the LBC which was ignored as junk mail given there was neither a NtD nor a NtK
2) No breach, a permit was on display having been collected at X time which was a ssoon as practicable after parking. The claimant has not allowed any observation time when they are aware, or shoiuld be aware, of the needfor the permit to be collected

give us a link to the MSE thread, saves us repeatring theirs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 15:53
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



So if the signs on the forecourt are stating that parking for permit holders only then these would be classed as forbidding signs and cannot create a contract that can be breached.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 23:37
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE
Does anyone have any advice on what defence to use?

Bargepole's example defence fro the MSE NEWBIES thread, plus adding your facts near the top, and showing us your draft. I can't see which MSE thread is yours?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cristalfiona
post Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 13:26
Post #5


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 14 Nov 2018
Member No.: 100,936



This is the MSE thread, it's on page 5 already!
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...d.php?t=5924028

Nosferatu - I'm unsure if there were any permanent permits issued to other users of the building so I don't think I could say they should have been aware of it. Could I still claim lack of grace period for retrieving a temporary permit? I also can't say what time the permit was actually displayed from/to as the driver doesn't remember the day in question due to the time elapsed since then. There was no time of offence on either the LBC or claim form, so I don't know if it was at the beginning or end of the parking peiod

I'll draw up a relevant defence over the next few days and post it here and on MSE for advice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 13:24
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Yuo can say that, and its up to them to argue otherwise. Dont sell yourself short!

You can aoso say that it insnt a GRACE period, it is a necessary and required period of time; failing to apply one leads to a ludicrous sitaution.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cristalfiona
post Tue, 27 Nov 2018 - 11:43
Post #7


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 14 Nov 2018
Member No.: 100,936



When I try to upload the pictures, it says it's uploading the first one then the option to upload disappears and it says there are no current attachments. The file size isn't too large. Is there another way I can add the images?

I've left my original post below so I don't forget by the time I upload the files.

I'm just in the process of drawing this up at the moment. I have points for the lack of NtK/NtD and lack of time allowed for collection of the temporary permit. I have 4 questions regarding the signs:

1. Is this a forbidding sign?
2. The amounts (£90 and £50) on the large sign don't match the amount on the claim form (£160), can I put in a point regarding this and if so what should it say?
3. Is the black and white sign too small and illegible, and is this valid if the other one is legible? If not can I claim the signs having conflicting info (where legible) particularly regarding the amounts as above?
4. Do the signs imply they are managed by two different companies, leading to confusion to persons using the parking area?

Also is there anything to go on regarding the fact there are no marked parking bays?

This post has been edited by cristalfiona: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 - 11:58
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 27 Nov 2018 - 12:19
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



As the keeper of the vehicle you cannot liable for more than the amount on the original PCN POFA 4 (5)

Upload your pictures to a picture hosting site and then insert the link in this forum.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cristalfiona
post Tue, 27 Nov 2018 - 12:42
Post #9


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 14 Nov 2018
Member No.: 100,936



Ok, the links to the signs are:

http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=NuVqmz...0oJ7Yh4l5k2TGxc

http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=NuVqmz...xzuBIh4l5k2TGxc

http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=NuVqmz...J4Vy4h4l5k2TGxc

That's the problem though, there was no PCN placed on the vehicle or Notice to Keeper received through the post. So the only amounts I have are those on the signs and the LBC and claim form.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cristalfiona
post Mon, 3 Dec 2018 - 10:41
Post #10


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 14 Nov 2018
Member No.: 100,936



I have drafted my defence and would appreciate it if anyone could look it over and suggest any necessary changes.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: CXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

Es Parking Enforcement Limited (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXXX (Defendant)
1. It is admitted that the defendant, Miss XXXXXX XXXXX, residing at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

2. The defendant holds no keeper liability as no Notice to Keeper was ever received, either as a Notice to Driver on the vehicle during the alleged breach of parking, or in the post afterwards.

2. (i) As such, the Letter before Court was dismissed as junk mail when received from a company the Defendant had never heard of regarding an alleged parking offence the Defendant had no prior knowledge of.
3. The defendant claims there was no breach as the driver only had access to a temporary permit, requiring collection from inside the building. As the issuer of these permits, the claimant should be aware of this.
3. (i) There was no breach of the terms of parking as the permit was collected and displayed as soon as reasonably possible after parking. The claimant did not allow a necessary and required period of time for collection and return of the temporary permit.
4. The signage displayed only makes an 'offer of parking' to permit holders, and therefore only permit holders can be potentially bound by the contractual terms conveyed (and only if the terms were clear and prominent as adequate notice of the charge, which is denied).
4. (i) The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a vehicle parking in the area covered by the signage, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the POFA and/or the existing easements, rights of way and the permit agreement already concluded, it is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event.
5. (i) The claimant’s sign makes an offer of parking to permit holders only and not to the general public and is therefore a forbidding sign.
6. There is signage on display in the parking area from two different companies offering different terms and charging different penalties. This implies management of the parkin g area by two different companies, causing confusion for persons using the parking area.
7. The claimant’s sign states that vehicles must be parked wholly within a bay, however there are no bays within the parking area. This proves the uncertainty of the small part of the terms and conditions that can be read. The signage displayed information which is incorrect of the private parking area being managed by the claimant whereby there were no parking bays at all visible.
8. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free.
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.
9. (i) 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.
10. It is denied that any 'parking charges or indemnity costs' (whatever they might be) are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety. This is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors. Nor are any clear times/dates or coherent grounds for any lawful claim particularised, nor were any details provided to evidence any contract created nor any copy of this contract, nor explanation for the vague description 'parking charges' and 'indemnity costs'. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Particulars are not clear and concise, so I have had to cover all eventualities in defending a 'cut & paste' claim. This has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.
11. The Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim to an unconscionably high three-figure sum. The Defendant submits the £60 of added 'indemnity' costs has not actually been incurred by the Claimant and that this is an abuse of process, being an attempt to achieve double recovery, in a parking charge case where the sum of £100 is already artificially high, in order to more then comfortably cover the minor costs of operating a low-cost/template letter parking scheme. There have been no damages or further expenditure.
12. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to their significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.
13. No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.
14. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.
15. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA), a registered keeper can only be held liable for the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper'. This 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 due to providing no Notice to Keeper, either on the day in question or following this.
16. It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add any extra sums and that those sums formed part of the permit/parking contract formed with the permit holder in the first instance.
18. It is denied that any "parking charges / damages and indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of Claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bearclaw
post Mon, 3 Dec 2018 - 10:49
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 564
Joined: 15 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,103



" The defendant holds no keeper liability as no Notice to Keeper was ever received, either as a Notice to Driver on the vehicle during the alleged breach of parking, or in the post afterwards"

NtK and NtD are difference documents with different meanings...

The defendant holds no keeper liability, as no Notice to Driver was ever issued and then passed to the Keeper, and no Notice to Keeper was received via post subsequent to the event.

2(i) it's a letter before Claim not before Court

5. Put in Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) then you can reference it as POFA subesquently.

4(i) Have a read of my POPLA appeal in the competed cases section. There is case law about how comments in signs making contracts should be very visible. (Denning in Spurling v Bradshow and also in Shoe Lane Parking) you might want to try and work that in to the defence showing that the signage is inadqeuate
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cristalfiona
post Mon, 3 Dec 2018 - 11:57
Post #12


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 14 Nov 2018
Member No.: 100,936



Thanks for your input bearclaw. I have made the changes, the updated draft is below:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: CXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

Es Parking Enforcement Limited (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXXX (Defendant)
1. It is admitted that the defendant, Miss XXXXXX XXXXX, residing at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

2. The defendant holds no keeper liability as no Notice to Driver was ever issued and then passed to the Keeper, and no Notice to Keeper was received via post subsequent to the event.

2. (i) As such, the Letter before Claim was dismissed as junk mail when received from a company the Defendant had never heard of regarding an alleged parking offence the Defendant had no prior knowledge of.
3. The defendant claims there was no breach as the driver only had access to a temporary permit, requiring collection from inside the building. As the issuer of these permits, the claimant should be aware of this.
3. (i) There was no breach of the terms of parking as the permit was collected and displayed as soon as reasonably possible after parking. The claimant did not allow a necessary and required period of time for collection and return of the temporary permit.
4. The signage displayed only makes an 'offer of parking' to permit holders, and therefore only permit holders can be potentially bound by the contractual terms conveyed (and only if the terms were clear and prominent as adequate notice of the charge, which is denied).
4. (i) The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a vehicle parking in the area covered by the signage, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. As stated in both Thornton vs Shoe Lane Parking and also in J Spurling Ltd vs Bradshaw (1956) EWCA, onerous contractual clauses should be prominently displayed. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and/or the existing easements, rights of way and the permit agreement already concluded, it is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event.
5. (i) The claimant’s sign makes an offer of parking to permit holders only and not to the general public and is therefore a forbidding sign.
6. There is signage on display in the parking area from two different companies offering different terms and charging different penalties. This implies management of the parkin g area by two different companies, causing confusion for persons using the parking area.
7. The claimant’s sign states that vehicles must be parked wholly within a bay, however there are no bays within the parking area. This proves the uncertainty of the small part of the terms and conditions that can be read. The signage displayed information which is incorrect of the private parking area being managed by the claimant whereby there were no parking bays at all visible.
8. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free.
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.
9. (i) 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.
10. It is denied that any 'parking charges or indemnity costs' (whatever they might be) are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety. This is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors. Nor are any clear times/dates or coherent grounds for any lawful claim particularised, nor were any details provided to evidence any contract created nor any copy of this contract, nor explanation for the vague description 'parking charges' and 'indemnity costs'. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Particulars are not clear and concise, so I have had to cover all eventualities in defending a 'cut & paste' claim. This has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.
11. The Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim to an unconscionably high three-figure sum. The Defendant submits the £60 of added 'indemnity' costs has not actually been incurred by the Claimant and that this is an abuse of process, being an attempt to achieve double recovery, in a parking charge case where the sum of £100 is already artificially high, in order to more then comfortably cover the minor costs of operating a low-cost/template letter parking scheme. There have been no damages or further expenditure.
12. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to their significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.
13. No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.
14. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.
15. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA), a registered keeper can only be held liable for the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper'. This 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 due to providing no Notice to Keeper, either on the day in question or following this.
16. It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add any extra sums and that those sums formed part of the permit/parking contract formed with the permit holder in the first instance.
18. It is denied that any "parking charges / damages and indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of Claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bearclaw
post Mon, 3 Dec 2018 - 12:15
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 564
Joined: 15 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,103



These judgements were made by Lord Denning who in 1970 was Master of the Rolls and head of civil justice. It's always worth sticking such a name in as it does carry great weight.

As stated by Lord Denning, then Master of the Rolls in Thornton vs Shoe Lane Parking (1970) EWCA and also by Denning LJ, in J Spurling Ltd vs Bradshaw (1956) EWCA, onerous contractual clauses should be prominently displayed - the famous "Red Hand rule". It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

I'd also make sure that this is pulled up...

5. The claimant’s sign makes an offer of parking to permit holders only and not to the general public and is therefore a forbidding sign.
6. There is signage on display in the parking area from two different companies offering different terms and charging different penalties. This implies management of the parkin g area by two different companies, causing confusion for persons using the parking area.

9. (i) 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.

Others can comment but I would also stick all this at the top...

"It is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. In particular,

i) The claimant’s sign makes an offer of parking to permit holders only. This is a claim that should be made under tort not contract
ii) There is signage on display in the parking area from two different companies offering different terms and charging different penalties. These claims should be made under contract not tort.

The particulars of claim are sparse and unhelpful and give no clear view as to these questions. It is therefore requested that the court strikes the claim for these reasons, or Orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim. "


Others will hopefully comment on this course of action too.

This post has been edited by bearclaw: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 - 12:25
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cristalfiona
post Mon, 3 Dec 2018 - 13:17
Post #14


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 14 Nov 2018
Member No.: 100,936



Hi bearclaw. I have made your first change and I have also made some changes as suggested on the MSE thread linked above. For the rest of the changes, do you mean to bring all three of those clauses to the top, or just bring 9(i) to be after 5 and 6 (which has changed slightly), and change it as below, leaving 9 where it is (numbers to be changed as applicable)? Updated version below with the changes I've made so far.

DEFENCE

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: CXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

Es Parking Enforcement Limited (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXXX (Defendant)
1. It is admitted that the defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

2. The defendant holds no keeper liability as no Notice to Driver was ever issued and then passed to the Keeper, and no Notice to Keeper was received via post subsequent to the event.

2. (i) As such, the Letter before Claim was dismissed as junk mail when received from a company the Defendant had never heard of regarding an alleged parking offence of which the Defendant had no prior knowledge.
3. The defendant claims there was no breach as the driver only had access to a temporary permit, requiring collection from inside the building. As the issuer of these permits, the claimant should allow a period of grace to cover the necessity and expectation that visiting drivers will have to enter the premises to fetch a permit. Such drivers do not arrive with a permit in their hands, and this activity can take several minutes after arrival, given the layout and nature of the premises.
4. The signage displayed only makes an 'offer of parking' to permit holders, and therefore only permit holders can be potentially bound by the contractual terms conveyed (and only if the terms were clear and prominent as adequate notice of the charge, which is denied).
4. (i) The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a vehicle parking in the area covered by the signage, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. As stated by Lord Denning, then Master of the Rolls in Thornton vs Shoe Lane Parking (1970) EWCA and also by Denning LJ, in J Spurling Ltd vs Bradshaw (1956) EWCA, onerous contractual clauses should be prominently displayed - the famous "Red Hand rule". It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and/or the existing easements, rights of way and the permit agreement already concluded, it is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event.
5. (i) The claimant’s sign makes an offer of parking to permit holders only and not to the general public and is therefore a forbidding sign.
6. There is signage on display in the parking area from two different companies offering different terms and charging different penalties, albeit the small print of neither sign is actually legible. This causes significant confusion for persons using the parking area, fails to meet the level of expected signage required in the IPC Code of Practice regulatory framework, and voids even the most basic requirements of clarity and transparency in any consumer contract; not just regarding the terms that apply, but muddying the waters as regards which party is offering any contract.
7. The claimant’s sign states that vehicles must be parked wholly within a bay, however there are no bays within the parking area. This proves the uncertainty of the small part of the terms and conditions that can be read. The signage displayed information which is incorrect of the private parking area being managed by the claimant whereby there were no parking bays at all visible.
8. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free.
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.
9. (i) 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.
10. It is denied that any 'parking charges or indemnity costs' (whatever they might be) are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety. This is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors. Nor are any clear times/dates or coherent grounds for any lawful claim particularised, nor were any details provided to evidence any contract created nor any copy of this contract, nor explanation for the vague description 'parking charges' and 'indemnity costs'. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Particulars are not clear and concise, so I have had to cover all eventualities in defending a 'cut & paste' claim. This has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.
11. The Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim to an unconscionably high three-figure sum. The Defendant submits the £60 of added 'indemnity' costs has not actually been incurred by the Claimant and that this is an abuse of process, being an attempt to achieve double recovery, in a parking charge case where the sum of £100 is already artificially high, in order to more than comfortably cover the minor costs of operating a low-cost/template letter parking scheme. There have been no damages or further expenditure.
12. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to their significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.
13. No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under POFA 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.
14. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.
15. Under the POFA 2012, Schedule 4 a registered keeper can only be held liable for the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper'. This 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 due to providing no Notice to Keeper, either on the day in question or following this.
16. It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add any extra sums and that those sums formed part of the permit/parking contract formed with the permit holder in the first instance.
18. It is denied that any "parking charges / damages and indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of Claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bearclaw
post Tue, 4 Dec 2018 - 13:58
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 564
Joined: 15 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,103



Id make sure that the part about inviting the Court to strike the claim, or to order Further and Better particulars is right at the top, numbered as 1. IT makes it clear that you've tried to be reasonable and avoid court, and they have just ignored all the pre action protocols etc..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Tue, 4 Dec 2018 - 14:37
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Yes

Defences should follow a logical starting with whether the claim should exist at all :

You want to lead the judge down a well-signed pathway without giving opportunities for him to double back or leave the path to go wandering across the countryside to somewhere that looks interesting

You're trying to create a series of hurdles and ES only has to fall at one for the claim to fail
Imagine putting Even if the previous point fails in front of each point

I like something along the lines :

Particulars of claim don't disclose a cause of action - invite to strike out claim or order further and better particulars
Claimant doesn't have any legal capacity to bring claims
Any comment why the claimant cannot have a contract at all (residential cases)
Even if it does, it doesn't have capacity to bring claim when the allegation would be trespass
No evidence of the driver
Has failed to meet the conditions to recover payment from keeper
Signs inadequate and in breach of Code of Practice (use this phrase wherever possible)
Any comments about a right to park and ignore the signs
Driver did not agree contract/breach contract (whatever is appropriate)
Parking notice does not match signs
Company has not paid additional charges
Additional charges cannot be recovered eg described as legal costs or indemnity charges
Why Beavis says that no charges can be recovered
Repeat invitation to strike out claim

I would lose #12
It's an opinion that adds nothing to your actual defence
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cristalfiona
post Mon, 15 Apr 2019 - 10:02
Post #17


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 14 Nov 2018
Member No.: 100,936



Hello again all,

So I submitted my defense, was allocated to my local court and I'm just in the process of writing my witness statement. It currently reads as follows (I need to check the dates against the paperwork, which is why they're currently blank):

In the County Court at xxxxxx

Claim No. xxxx

Between XXX (Claimant)

and

xxxxxx (Defendant)

Witness Statement of [me], of [my address].

I am the Defendant in this matter. Any evidence in the my statement will be referred to the attached documents as Exhibit 01, Exhibit 02 and so on.

I am the registered keeper of a [make and model] registration [reg no].

The parking event took place on xxth February 2018; in view of the fact that no Notice to Keeper was left on the vehicle in the form of a Parking Charge Notice on the date in question and no communication was received from either the claimant or their solicitors prior to the Letter Before Claim dated xxth September 2018, it is difficult for the defendant to be clear on events for that specific day. The defendant can only specify what happened on all occasions where parking took place on the land in question. The driver worked in the building at the time, and when working regular hours during the week parked elsewhere. When working overtime hours at the weekend, the driver would park outside the building and use a temporary pass to park. As there were only two passes for the company and approx. 10 employees, several of whom would use the facilities to work extra hours, this pass had to be collected from the office when required. The driver parked on the apron in front of the building, accessed the building and then the office, collected the pass and returned to place it on the car. When leaving this process would be reversed.

The signage at the front of the building is confusing, as there are signs displayed from two different companies, both displaying different parking conditions and penalties. These are also well above head height and in small print which is difficult to read from a vehicle parked below or on foot. The text which is legible of the claimant’s signage constitutes a forbidding sign, as no contract can be offered to the general public. Their sign states that vehicles must be parked wholly within a bay, however the attached photo clearly shows that there are no marked bays, throwing uncertainty on the whole sign as the displayed information is incorrect.



Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Signature

Date


I'm going to include the following as exhibits and refer to them above: temporary passes, pictures of signage, pictures of lack of bays and Case Law PCM v Bull and UKPC v Masterson.


I have however tried to get onto the case law pages from parking prankster and both of the links for forbidding signage are going nowhere though some other links seem to be working. Does anyone know where else I can find this or have a copy of the PDFs I could have?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 15 Apr 2019 - 10:16
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,503
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (cristalfiona @ Mon, 15 Apr 2019 - 11:02) *
...in view of the fact that no Notice to Keeper was left on the vehicle in the form of a Parking Charge Notice on the date in question

A PCN left on a car at the time would be called a 'Notice to Driver'.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cristalfiona
post Mon, 15 Apr 2019 - 10:29
Post #19


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 14 Nov 2018
Member No.: 100,936



Thanks, sentence amended to "...no Notice to Driver was left on the vehicle in the form of a Parking Charge Notice on the date in question and no Notice to Keeper or other communication..."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 13:00
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here