Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Paid... Displayed... but still a Fine?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
MouthingOff
Hi all

I was given a PCN from a private parking company despite paying and displaying a valid ticket.

I have proof that the ticket was paid for and displayed on the side window of the car. The parking company however are threatening court action as the ticket was not on the windscreen.

Their terms on signage in the car park state that tickets need to be displayed on the windscreen however our car was parallel parked so we put the ticket on the passenger window so it was easier for a passing parking warden to see.

We are now being chased for a hefty fine and threatened with court action which seems ludicrous given the fact that they have accepted that we paid to park in the car park but displayed the ticket on the wrong part of our vehicle!

Has anyone had any experience of this?
Jlc
Which parking company?

There's a very good argument that Beavis does not save this and it is an unenforceable penalty.

Just the sort of practice that the recent parking bill referred too...!
MouthingOff
UK Car Park Management Ltd were the issuers of the PCN.
Jlc
They are quite litigious of late - but I wouldn't be paying them for this.

This is the type of case that the forthcoming parking bill should hopefully address. It's a feeding frenzy out there at the moment. Have a read Here - might be worth referring to.

As I said the key defence would be that such a term only acts as an unenforceable penalty as there's no justification to disincentivise such behaviour. It's profiteering, more so if they acknowledge it was displayed.
MouthingOff
Not only have they acknowledged that it was displayed... they also sent me a photograph of the valid ticket displayed in the passenger window. Complete profiteering and unreasonable terms in my opinion.

Thanks a lot for the link.
Jlc
The predominate reason of the scheme is to ensure drivers park and pay appropriately, not to catch them out on minor technicalities.
MouthingOff
So today I received a claim form from the county court business centre.

I simply don’t have time to deal with this and know I’m in the right.

We paid, we displayed and the claimant has even acknowledged this. However they are fighting the fact that we didn’t put the ticket on the windscreen and instead had it on the door window.

Please can someone provide reference to a lawyer that can take this forward for us? Or at least how we proceed from here?
Jlc
A lawyer will not be cost effective as you won't be able to reclaim their cost.

You will either have to put the time in and be prepared to attend the hearing or pay it.
MouthingOff
thanks for the advice.

This claim is so ludicrous that I’m not prepared to back down. Is there a template I should be using for my defence and counterclaim?

Thanks for your advice on this.
nosferatu1001
What counterclaim are you proposing?

There are plenty of defences here. Not really a template
Have you gone ONLINE to acknowledge the claim?
ostell
Acknowledge but NOTHING in the defence. This gives 33 days form date of issue to get you defence to the court.

Searcg on here for previous defence statements and modify to suit. Put on here for critique before you send.

The main thing is that the alleged breach is de minimis as the the purpose of the contract was to pay for parking and this was completed.
MouthingOff
Thanks so far everyone.

Acknowledgment of service was submitted on 16/06/2018 and I will begin looking into my defence now.

I'm honestly horrified that a company feels they can take you to court for loss of earnings because a parking ticket was on a side window (which they've acknowledged) rather than on the windscreen. Absolute cowboys!

It worries me to think how many people would have just coughed up to avoid the stress and worry.
MouthingOff
All - please can you review my defence statement below? I've tried to keep this as short and concise as possible:


Defence Statement

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief claimed in the sum of £XXX, or at all, for the reasons stated in the following paragraphs.
2. It is admitted that the Defendant is/was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question on the material date.
3. On the material date, the Defendant was, at the material time, displaying a valid ticket which was paid for and displayed in a prominent position in the vehicle.
4. The alleged breach is de minimis as the purpose of the contract was to pay for parking and this was completed. The Defendant believes that this is an unenforceable penalty and simply put, is profiteering, especially as the Claimant has acknowledged that a valid ticket was paid for and displayed on the vehicle.
5. The Claimant’s signs at the entrance of the car park make no reference to where the ticket should be displayed in the vehicle. A driver could not reasonably be expected to read several different signs that are displayed around the car park, and the principle of contra proferentem would mean that such ambiguity should be resolved in the Defendant's favour.
6. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and has already submitted an invoice to the Claimant for responses related to this case so far. Should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).
7. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against motorists, alleging 'debts' where parking costs have been paid is not something the Courts should be seen to support.
8. The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors, Gladstones, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centres in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).
9. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.
10. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to explain their reason for claim more clearly, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this Defence.

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
Redivi
Gladstones claims have a standard format :

The driver of the vehicle registration **** incurred the parking charges on (date) for breaching the terms of parking on the land at (location)
The Defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle
AND the Claimant claims £*** for parking charges/damages and indemnity costs if applicable together with interest....


Your defence, unfortunately comes over as a rant and it isn't easy to find where you've addressed the actual claim

The claim doesn't mention the display of the ticket so don't lead with it

First of all attack that the claim discloses no cause of action - it gives no indication what the driver did that entitles UKCPM to a payment
Ask at this point that the court strikes out the claim as in breach of Practice Direction 16 Paras 7.3 to 7.5 and CPR 16.4

Then, notwithstanding that the claim does not disclose the nature of the alleged breach of terms and conditions you deny that there was any breach
The driver purchased and displayed a ticket as instructed.
This is confirmed by the claimant's own photographs that it sent with the parking notice

Although the claim does not mention the alleged breach of T&C, in order to assist the court, the parking notice was issued because the operative asserts that the parking receipt was not displayed correctly
You fail to understand the reason for the complaint - the Claimant cannot deny that the receipt was clearly visible because it has been photographed
You assume that the claimant intended the receipt to be displayed on the dashboard but the signs impose no such requirement
You submit that the Claimant's action amounts to predatory behaviour as defined in its Code of Practice

Even if the signs had imposed such a requirement, the driver had substantially complied with the terms of the parking conditions and any inconvenience to the operative was trivial and de minimis
The charge is a penalty that fails the test applied in ParkingEye v Beavis whether it is enforceable
the true test is whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest of the innocent party in the enforcement of the primary obligation.

The Supreme Court also determined that a penalty was not enforceable if the parking company failed to comply with its Code of Practice

You do not believe that UKCPM has incurred £60 costs
You have reasonable belief that they are indemnity costs and put the claimant to proof that the circumstances were so unique that the specific legal advice was required

You have the reasonable belief that the claim is vexatious and has been issued to cause such alarm that you will make a payment that is not owed
As such, it is an abuse of the court process
You invite the court to use its powers under CPR 3.4 to strike out the case or order further and better particulars of claim
You also invite the court to have regard to CPR 27.14 when it disposes of the costs of the claim
ostell
It is confrimed by the claimant's photograph and letter....
Redivi
QUOTE (ostell @ Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 16:09) *
It is confrimed by the claimant's photograph and letter....

Or even

It is confirmed by the photograph included with the claimant's original letter
ostell
I was just trying to get over that the text of the letter, not just the photo, admitted that there was a ticket on display so they knew it was therre.
MouthingOff
Many thanks for the feedback... please see below for a second crack at the defence. Any feedback would be hugely appreciated


Defence Statement

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief claimed in the sum of £XXX, or at all, for the reasons stated in the following paragraphs.
2. It is admitted that the Defendant is/was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question on the material date.
3. On the material date, the Defendant was, at the material time, displaying a valid ticket which was paid for and displayed in a prominent position in the vehicle.
4. The claim discloses no cause of action - it gives no indication what the Defendant did that entitles UKCPM to a payment. We ask that the court strikes out the claim as in breach of Practice Direction 16 Paras 7.3 to 7.5 and CPR 16.4.
5. Notwithstanding that the claim does not disclose the nature of the alleged breach of terms and conditions I deny that there was any breach. The driver purchased and displayed a ticket as instructed. This is confirmed by the claimant's own photographs that were sent following the parking notice.
6. The parking notice was issued because the operative asserts that the parking receipt was not displayed correctly. I fail to understand the reason for the complaint - the Claimant cannot deny that the receipt was clearly visible because it has been photographed. I submit that the Claimant's action amounts to predatory behaviour as defined in its Code of Practice
7. Even if the signs had imposed such a requirement, the driver had substantially complied with the terms of the parking conditions and any inconvenience to the operative was trivial and de minimis. The charge is a penalty that fails the test applied in ParkingEye v Beavis whether it is enforceable. The Supreme Court also determined that a penalty was not enforceable if the parking company failed to comply with its Code of Practice.
8. I do not believe that UKCPM has incurred £60 costs. I have reasonable belief that they are indemnity costs and put the claimant to prove that the circumstances were so unique that specific legal advice was required. I have belief that the claim is vexatious and has been issued to cause such alarm that I will make a payment that is not owed. As such, it is an abuse of the court process
9. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success. I also invite the court to have regard to CPR 27.14 when it disposes of the costs of the claim
10. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to explain their reason for claim more clearly, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this Defence.

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
The Rookie
As a matter of interest do you have a photo of the signage, it would be interesting to explore any avenues they may create in their wording.
MouthingOff
Please see two signs... one that they sent me (explaining windscreen) and one that I went back and photographed at the entrance to the car park

2nd pic attached
The Rookie
Was the stick on part on there on the day? To be fair its pretty clear on the display, but does that mean the driver no longer had permission to park, it doesn't state what permission is required or what constitutes parking without permission. Would you be parking without permission before any ticket was (or could be) bought, is it the act of parking and not being parked that triggers the penalty in the contract? Plenty of scope to add some of that into the defence.

However its also a forbidding sign, how can you agree to pay £100 to park without permission? Simply put you cannot, so the matter is trespass and only the land holder and take action (for damages, not a contractually agreed sum).
MouthingOff
Unfortunately I’m not aware whether the sticker was there on the day or not.
Redivi
Who agrees a contract to pay £100 to display a receipt in a side window instead of a windscreen ?
MouthingOff
Do you think the below defence is OK to submit then? Given the photographs I've provided or would you add more in there?

Defence Statement

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief claimed in the sum of £XXX, or at all, for the reasons stated in the following paragraphs.
2. It is admitted that the Defendant is/was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question on the material date.
3. On the material date, the Defendant was, at the material time, displaying a valid ticket which was paid for and displayed in a prominent position in the vehicle.
4. The claim discloses no cause of action - it gives no indication what the Defendant did that entitles UKCPM to a payment. We ask that the court strikes out the claim as in breach of Practice Direction 16 Paras 7.3 to 7.5 and CPR 16.4.
5. Notwithstanding that the claim does not disclose the nature of the alleged breach of terms and conditions I deny that there was any breach. The driver purchased and displayed a ticket as instructed. This is confirmed by the claimant's own photographs that were sent following the parking notice.
6. The parking notice was issued because the operative asserts that the parking receipt was not displayed correctly. I fail to understand the reason for the complaint - the Claimant cannot deny that the receipt was clearly visible because it has been photographed. I submit that the Claimant's action amounts to predatory behaviour as defined in its Code of Practice
7. Even if the signs had imposed such a requirement, the driver had substantially complied with the terms of the parking conditions and any inconvenience to the operative was trivial and de minimis. The charge is a penalty that fails the test applied in ParkingEye v Beavis whether it is enforceable. The Supreme Court also determined that a penalty was not enforceable if the parking company failed to comply with its Code of Practice.
8. I do not believe that UKCPM has incurred £60 costs. I have reasonable belief that they are indemnity costs and put the claimant to prove that the circumstances were so unique that specific legal advice was required. I have belief that the claim is vexatious and has been issued to cause such alarm that I will make a payment that is not owed. As such, it is an abuse of the court process
9. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success. I also invite the court to have regard to CPR 27.14 when it disposes of the costs of the claim
10. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to explain their reason for claim more clearly, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this Defence.

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
MouthingOff
So... we’ve now received a court date for Q1 2019 - looks like they are going to pursue this. I will let everyone know how it goes. Any tips for dealing with this on the day?
Macapaca
QUOTE (MouthingOff @ Thu, 27 Dec 2018 - 19:15) *
So... we’ve now received a court date for Q1 2019 - looks like they are going to pursue this. I will let everyone know how it goes. Any tips for dealing with this on the day?

Just stay calm and present the facts.
SchoolRunMum
QUOTE (MouthingOff @ Thu, 27 Dec 2018 - 19:15) *
So... we’ve now received a court date for Q1 2019 - looks like they are going to pursue this. I will let everyone know how it goes. Any tips for dealing with this on the day?


See other court threads on here, to see the tips offered.

You can also find every MSE forum parking case won by posters in 2017 and 2018 by searching that parking forum for 'another one bites the dust', which will give you not only outcomes, and MSE posters' court reports etc., but also the tips they got from the regulars just before they went to the hearing and won.

You do of course need to submit (file and serve) your WS and evidence in time - but you know that, from the letter giving you the hearing date...
MouthingOff
Following numerous court date changes, we’ve just walked out of court.

Judge was furious with UKCPM and Gladstone’s and threatened to report their claim to the authorities.

Awarded costs to us.

Thanks for everyone’s help with this
ManxRed
Well done. A sensible judge, it would appear.

If you have time to post any details later, it may be of use for future cases.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.