Tweet
Hi, I previously sent my defence to the county court (below) and have now received a lengthy witness statement from Gladstones. I have now received a very lengthy witness statement from the claimant (attached as pdf and redacted as necessary) . They have provided copies of the NTK and other notices which I did not receive, the only two that I have are the 'Final Reminder' and 'Letter before claim'. This is a manned carpark where you purchase the ticket from a counter before entering, there is a ticket machine which was out of order at the time for which there is a witness. In one of the pictures a woman can be seen trying to use the out of order machine. The defendant was NOT the driver of the vehicle at the time as well.
Any help would be immensely appreciated.
Thank you
Defence previously submitted:
1.
I am the Defendant, ------------, and reside at ------------------
2.
The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant.
3.
A valid ticket was purchased by the driver to cover the estimated duration of stay.
4.
If the Claimant is intending to pursue this claim against the Defendant on the basis that the Defendant is the registered keeper then the Claimant has failed to show that the conditions for recovering this charge under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have been met. The Defendant disputes that any of the conditions necessary for a claim to be pursued against the keeper of the vehicle have been met.
5.a)
No evidence has been provided to show a valid Notice to Driver was given to the driver in accordance with Paragraph 7, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
5.b)
Where a Notice to Driver was given no evidence has been provided to show that a valid Notice to Keeper was served in accordance with Paragraph 8, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
5.c)
No evidence has been provided to show that the Creditor has made a valid application for keepers details in accordance with Paragraph 11, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
6.
It is believed that the Claimant has no standing to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. The claimant has failed to establish their legal right to bring a claim either as the landholder or the agent of the landholder. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to SIP PARKING LTD. The Defendant claims that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus standi to bring this case.
7. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.
8.
The Claimant might argue that the Supreme Court’s decision in Parking Eye v. Beavis is applicable. The Defendant will argue that the present case meets none of the conditions that the Supreme Court stated were required for a parking notice to be exempt from the well-established principle that penalty charges cannot be recovered. The main difference is that the Supreme Court determined that, in a retail park, there was a public interest in ensuring a turnover of visitors that justified a disincentive to overstay. There is clearly no such interest in a third party attempting to impose its conditions where there is no public interest in ensuring a turnover of visitors.
9.
The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor cost and interest. The Particulars of Claim are spectacularly deficient and woefully inadequate to show a cause of action.
10.
The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. 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 defendant therefore asks that the court orders the case to be struck out for want of a detailed course of action and/or for the claim as having no prospect of success.
I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.
Any help would be immensely appreciated.
Thank you
Defence previously submitted:
1.
I am the Defendant, ------------, and reside at ------------------
2.
The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant.
3.
A valid ticket was purchased by the driver to cover the estimated duration of stay.
4.
If the Claimant is intending to pursue this claim against the Defendant on the basis that the Defendant is the registered keeper then the Claimant has failed to show that the conditions for recovering this charge under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have been met. The Defendant disputes that any of the conditions necessary for a claim to be pursued against the keeper of the vehicle have been met.
5.a)
No evidence has been provided to show a valid Notice to Driver was given to the driver in accordance with Paragraph 7, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
5.b)
Where a Notice to Driver was given no evidence has been provided to show that a valid Notice to Keeper was served in accordance with Paragraph 8, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
5.c)
No evidence has been provided to show that the Creditor has made a valid application for keepers details in accordance with Paragraph 11, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
6.
It is believed that the Claimant has no standing to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. The claimant has failed to establish their legal right to bring a claim either as the landholder or the agent of the landholder. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to SIP PARKING LTD. The Defendant claims that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus standi to bring this case.
7. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.
8.
The Claimant might argue that the Supreme Court’s decision in Parking Eye v. Beavis is applicable. The Defendant will argue that the present case meets none of the conditions that the Supreme Court stated were required for a parking notice to be exempt from the well-established principle that penalty charges cannot be recovered. The main difference is that the Supreme Court determined that, in a retail park, there was a public interest in ensuring a turnover of visitors that justified a disincentive to overstay. There is clearly no such interest in a third party attempting to impose its conditions where there is no public interest in ensuring a turnover of visitors.
9.
The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor cost and interest. The Particulars of Claim are spectacularly deficient and woefully inadequate to show a cause of action.
10.
The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. 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 defendant therefore asks that the court orders the case to be struck out for want of a detailed course of action and/or for the claim as having no prospect of success.
I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.
Comment