Claim Form Received from County Court Business Centre- for private parking charge notice |
Claim Form Received from County Court Business Centre- for private parking charge notice |
Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 18:17
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 19 Joined: 20 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,017 |
Hi,
First of all, thank you for all the support which is provided through this site and taking the time out to read this. I received 2 parking charge Notices from CPM (UK Car Park Management limited) for 'Unauthorised Parking' in a car park. I was not the driver of the vehicle of the time but I am the registered keeper. The issue date was in December 2017 and January 2018 and was for £100 or reduced to £60 if paid in 14 days. It was sent to me in a post with two pictures of my car in the letter. The reason was 'unauthorized parking'. Since then, I received another letter called 'Formal Demand' roughly after 40 days of the first letter where it says to pay £100. Then I started receiving DRP letters (Sometime around August 2018) asking to settle payment of £320. Following that, I received a letter from Gladstone Solicitors on Sep 17 asking me to settle payment of £320 and then another 'Letter before claim' in Oct 2017. As I am a student living away from home I opened the letters after the 14 day period causing it to rise from £60 to £100 taking advice from other forums, I decided to ignore them and I never contacted or reply to any correspondence thinking that they will stop. Now (March 2019), I have received a claim form from county court Business Centre, Northampton asking to pay CPM £348.50 + £35.00 court fee + £50 legal rep fee total of £433.50. I haven't kept all the letters only the two from the solicitors stating letter before claim. I need advice on what to do next. I believe I have a reason to fight this claim due to the driver of the vehicle at the time has said they took an exit from the car park having no visible signage. The car park only contained two signs which were located next to each other. Where the signage was on the other side of the car park wasn't clearly pointed out or illuminated. There was also no signage when entering. I also believe the amount which is being claimed for the driver leaving the car for such a short amount of time (Quickly popped into a shop to pick up a parcel) does not justify such a huge amount of money especially when the contractual agreement to which the driver seemed to have agreed to was not clearly visible, or stated anything regarding debt collection fees. Please, can you offer me advice on what to do next or? I have 14 days to acknowledge of service then submit my defense. I can upload pics of letters and photos upon request. Please speak to me in layman's term as I don't fully understand the process. Where exactly? Carpark name and town - 51-57 East Bond Street, Leicester, LE1 4SX Questionnaire: 1 Date of the infringement[s] - 26/12/2017 and 13/01/2019 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] - Cannot remember disposed of letter 3 Date received N/A 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?] - N/A 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? - They took two pictures of my car and printed them in the letter 6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] post up your appeal] Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up - I did not respond at all 7 Who is the parking company? CPM 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] - 51-57 East Bond Street, Leicester, LE1 4SX This post has been edited by TyrionLannister012: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 20:05 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 18:17
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Fri, 12 Apr 2019 - 11:11
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 163 Joined: 1 Jun 2010 Member No.: 37,924 |
Hi TyrionLannister012, Please could you confirm how did you receive reply from Gladstones solicitors, by email or post? When was the request raised i.e. how many days did they take to send it. I understand you only had emailed them at the email address enquiries@gladstonessolicitors.co.uk. I have not had a reply yet, hence the question. If you received it by email ,then I know for sure, they have not sent me one. If it's by post, then it's possible that it would have got lost in post as i have not received one. I need to include this in my defence which is due early part of next week, would appreciate your help in adding this to my defence. Thanks
This post has been edited by Dheeraj: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 - 11:12 |
|
|
Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 20:06
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 19 Joined: 20 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,017 |
Hi all, I have had an attempt at the defence statement, any feedback would be greatly appreciated
In The County Court Claim No: XXXXXXX Between UKCPS Ltd (Claimant) -and- XXXXXXX (Defendant) ____________ DEFENCE ____________ 1. The Defendant was the registered keeper but was not the driver of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. 2. The Defendant denies that the signs at the location followed the Claimant's trade association Code of Practice 3. The Defendant has asked the Claimants solicitor for a site map and photographs of the signs, but nothing was provided 4. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the capacity to take legal action in this matter 5. The Defendant has asked the Claimant's solicitor for the documentary evidence required by its client's Code of Practice Para B (1.1) that demonstrates sufficient right to occupy the land in question. The request has been ignored 6. Further based upon the scant and deficient details contained in the Particulars of Claim and correspondence, it appears to be the Claimant's case that: a. There was a contract formed by the Defendant and the Claimant on XX/XX/2017. b. There was an agreement to pay a sum or parking charge c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site d. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums. e. The Claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time. 7. It is denied that: a. A contract was formed b. There was an agreement to pay a parking charge. c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site. d. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums. e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time. 8. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. 9. The Defendant denies that they would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible. a. The amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council which is set at £70 or £35 if paid within 14 days. 10. In summary, the Claimant's disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety. Statement of Truth: I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. Name Signature Date |
|
|
Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 20:20
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
The Protection of Freedoms Act says that UKCPS can recover payment from you as the registered keeper if it doesn't know who was driving
You therefore have to show that it didn't meet the conditions of POFA to recover payment from you |
|
|
Mon, 15 Apr 2019 - 20:40
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 19 Joined: 20 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,017 |
The Protection of Freedoms Act says that UKCPS can recover payment from you as the registered keeper if it doesn't know who was driving You therefore have to show that it didn't meet the conditions of POFA to recover payment from you I was just under the assumption that you had to state the facts of the case in the defence. I have made changes if anyone can provide feedback. In The County Court Claim No: XXXXXXX Between UK Car Park Management Ltd (Claimant) -and- XXXXXXX (Defendant) ____________ DEFENCE ____________ 1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. 2. The facts of the matter are that the vehicle of registration number xxxxx, of which the Defendant was the registered keeper but, not the driver of on the material dates where the driver was liable for unauthorised parking. 3. The Defendant denies the charge for Unauthorised parking on the basis that the signs at the location followed the Claimant's trade association Code of Practice. Signs were not displayed clearly and prominently around the site at the entrance or exits; therefore, the driver had no knowledge it was parking entering on to private land or parking in an unauthorised bay. 4. It is denied that the Claimant’s signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person who would be able to read them. Not to mention the signs are also located at a distance, insufficient in number and placed high creating an illegible condition to read the terms and conditions required to enter a contract. The doctrine of contra proferentem applies and the interpretation that most favours a consumer must prevail; that being that the driver(s) did not see or accept the sum the Claimant says they did. a. The IPC guidelines state that signage at the entrance to the site should ‘Make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land’. There is no signage clearly displaying the parking conditions at the entrance of the site and no clear signs stating the driver is entering onto private land. 5. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim as the signage is a “forbidding offer”, which isn’t an offer at all, which means there can be no contract. 6. The Defendant has asked the Claimants solicitor for a site map and photographs of the signs, but nothing was provided 7. The Defendant has asked the Claimant's solicitor for the documentary evidence required by its client's Code of Practice Para B (1.1) that demonstrates sufficient right to occupy the land in question. The request has been ignored 8. UK Car Parking Management Ltd lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim 9. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct. 10. In the Defendant's case, there was no prominent contract for the defendant to read and accept. The Defendant avers that the factually-different Beavis decision confirms the assertion that this charge is unconscionable, given the facts of this case. To quote from the Supreme Court: a. Para 108: ''But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85''. b. Para 199: ''What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 [...] is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests. Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so.'' c. Para 205: ''The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.''10. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case, £100. 11. The Claimant has inexplicably added £60 in 'costs' bolted onto both £100 PCNs, despite using a solicitor to file the claim, who must understand the CPR 27.14 does not permit such 'admin' charges to be recovered in the Small Claims Court. a. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred and that it formed a prominent, legible part of any terms on signage, and that it was, in fact, expended. The Claimant harassed the Defendant with debt collector demands but these are sent on a no-win-no-fee basis by the likes of Debt Recovery Plus who advertise they only charge when they collect monies. To add £60 per PCN, plus alleged 'legal costs' on top is a wholly disingenuous attempt at double recovery, and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process. b. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant had not incurred any damages, nor admin, nor legal costs that are not already encompassed within the inflated “parking charge” (that the Supreme Court held in Beavis, was mostly profit and more than covers the very minimal template letter cost of running a parking operation). c. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost. 12. In Summary, it is the Defendant’s position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts claimed due to the reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14. Statement of Truth: I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. Name Signature Date |
|
|
Mon, 15 Apr 2019 - 21:09
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 19 Joined: 20 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,017 |
Hi TyrionLannister012, Please could you confirm how did you receive reply from Gladstones solicitors, by email or post? When was the request raised i.e. how many days did they take to send it. I understand you only had emailed them at the email address enquiries@gladstonessolicitors.co.uk. I have not had a reply yet, hence the question. If you received it by email ,then I know for sure, they have not sent me one. If it's by post, then it's possible that it would have got lost in post as i have not received one. I need to include this in my defence which is due early part of next week, would appreciate your help in adding this to my defence. Thanks Apologies Dheeraj I thought I had responded to you, I recieved a reply via email from them |
|
|
Mon, 15 Apr 2019 - 21:15
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
I’m not convinced about using a judgment from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ladak) in the county court.
Is the driver going to give you a witness statement as to the conditions of the signs on the day and that they didn’t see them? -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Tue, 16 Apr 2019 - 07:53
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 19 Joined: 20 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,017 |
Ok I will get that part removed from the defence.
I can provide a witness statement from the driver however reading some other defences they have chosen not to name who the driver of the vehicle was under POFA. Should I opt for doing the same or should I tell them who the driver at the time was? |
|
|
Tue, 16 Apr 2019 - 08:12
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
Definitely lose Ladak
It concerns a company charging its in-house solicitor costs at commercial rates You could include ParkingEye v Somerfield where it was commented that the addition of debt collector charges would definitely turn the parking charge into an excessive penalty |
|
|
Tue, 16 Apr 2019 - 15:40
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
I can provide a witness statement from the driver however reading some other defences they have chosen not to name who the driver of the vehicle was under POFA. Should I opt for doing the same or should I tell them who the driver at the time was? If the driver gives a witness statement then they have to give their name and address. How important is their evidence to your defence? -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Tue, 16 Apr 2019 - 15:47
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
A statement from the driver will prevent UKCPM recovering the additional charges and, if POFA hasn't been met, will prevent any recovery at all
|
|
|
Tue, 16 Apr 2019 - 15:51
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 19 Joined: 20 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,017 |
Ok so if I use for instead of Ladak 11) c. In ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] it was commented that the addition of debt collector charges would turn the parking charge into an excessive penalty, as seen in this instance.
Southpaw their evidence would explain from their account them not being able to see any signage on both occasions but I have visited the car park and seen for myself that signage is not shown adequately so should I leave them out if that helps my case? Redivi how can I check if POFA was met? Something in reference to POFA had been mentioned in the initial fine. |
|
|
Tue, 16 Apr 2019 - 18:43
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
Southpaw their evidence would explain from their account them not being able to see any signage on both occasions but I have visited the car park and seen for myself that signage is not shown adequately so should I leave them out if that helps my case?
Who or what is "them" ? If you mean the driver, leaving them out doesn't help your case unless you can produce evidence such as emails or your phone's tracking history that you weren't the driver Redivi how can I check if POFA was met? Something in reference to POFA had been mentioned in the initial fine. Compare the Parking Notice with the conditions in the Protection of Freedoms Act Schedule 4 Para 9 to check that ALL the information was provided and the deadline was met |
|
|
Tue, 16 Apr 2019 - 19:06
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 19 Joined: 20 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,017 |
Who or what is "them" ?
If you mean the driver, leaving them out doesn't help your case unless you can produce evidence such as emails or your phone's tracking history that you weren't the driver My bad I did mean the driver. How would I prove this via email? I didn't have any tracking history on at that point. If I am unable to prove who the driver was at the time what option does this leave me with. Compare the Parking Notice with the conditions in the Protection of Freedoms Act Schedule 4 Para 9 to check that ALL the information was provided and the deadline was met Thank you I will check this |
|
|
Tue, 16 Apr 2019 - 20:35
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 19 Joined: 20 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,017 |
Redivi how can I check if POFA was met? Something in reference to POFA had been mentioned in the initial fine. Compare the Parking Notice with the conditions in the Protection of Freedoms Act Schedule 4 Para 9 to check that ALL the information was provided and the deadline was met Looking at POFA Schedule 4 Para 9 and comparing it with the original notice I found this point not to have been met. 9 (2) (e) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver Other than this I can't really see much else |
|
|
Wed, 17 Apr 2019 - 15:00
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
That is one of the two most important pieces of information
The other is that, if it doesn't have the driver's details, it will have the right to recover payment from the keeper How has it explained the right to recover the payment from the keeper without first saying it doesn't know who was driving ? |
|
|
Thu, 25 Apr 2019 - 21:01
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 19 Joined: 20 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,017 |
It explained it as the following:
We, the Creditor, now request this amount is paid using one of the payment methods described overleaf. If you were not the driver of the vehicle, you should notify us (in writing using the form attached) of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and pass this notice on to the driver. You are advised that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which this notice is given – the amount of the unpaid parking charge specified in this notice has not been paid in full, and we do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 we will have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that parking charge amount as remains unpaid. The overdue charge will increase to £149.00 in the first instance of further action. |
|
|
Thu, 25 Apr 2019 - 22:13
Post
#37
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
The maximum amount that can be recovered from the keeper under POFA is the original parking charge
More specifically, the amount that was owed the day before the Parking Notice is sent That amount cannot be increased by adding an overdue charge whether the parking notice says so or not |
|
|
Fri, 26 Apr 2019 - 08:50
Post
#38
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,887 Joined: 16 Jul 2015 Member No.: 78,368 |
Redivi
could you clarify for future reference (overdue) charge that they may be claiming. They do generally claim legal costs. Debt recovery charges as you have pointed out previously is not paid by them. |
|
|
Fri, 26 Apr 2019 - 10:11
Post
#39
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
The overdue charge will increase to £149.00 in the first instance of further action.
It's like the debt collection charges If it's not a charge that's owed at the time they send the Notice to Keeper, they can't recover it from him CPR 27.14 is perfectly clear Legal costs cannot be recovered in Small Claims Court The only solicitor costs that can be recovered are the £50 Solicitor Fee to issue the claim Somebody managed to get a claim struck out for abuse of process because it included legal costs that the solicitor knew couldn't be recovered Wish everyone would send a complaint to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority every time BWL includes the charge |
|
|
Fri, 26 Apr 2019 - 12:03
Post
#40
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,887 Joined: 16 Jul 2015 Member No.: 78,368 |
Thanks for the clarification, much appreciated for the future.
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 06:42 |