Scs uk parking control ccj claim form help!!!

[JJ226699]

Hey guys wondering if I could get some advice on what to do... recently received a cjj claim form from scs on behalf of Uk parking control claiming for 1200+ for 7 parking charges
between 12/16 - 08/17. The cause of the parking charges were due to the fact of ‘parking in a designated “permit holder parking space” without clearly displaying a valid permit ‘ - taken from the LBC from scs.. I thought this would go away but it hasn’t & now I don’t know what to do! Any help would be greatly appreciated

[ostell]

Acknowledge the claim on or after day5. Nothing in the defence. This gives you 33 days from date of issue to get your defence to court

SAR to UKPC
CPR 31.14 request to SCS

Templates in Shortcuts panel on this page

Is this residential parking?

[JJ226699]

Got ya! Already have received the SAR from scs & UKPC ...would I still need to send off the CPR 31.14 also?? It’s parking on a business site where I used to work, a couple of us shared a permit which I have photos of in my car but the permit is registered to the company I worked for not myself.. obviously the days I received the pcns were the days I didn’t have the permit

[ostell]

So post up a redacted PCN, but leave dates

If you have that is mentioned in the Particulars of Claim then no need for CPR.

Edit so the driver cannot be inferred.

[JJ226699]

One of the original pcns or the ccj claim form? Sorry to be a pain! & yes when I got the LBC previously I wrote & asked for an SAR from both uk parking & scs which I have with me

[ostell]

Have you got everything mentioned in the PoC? Such as images of the signs.

I asked for PCN

[JJ226699]

Yeah i’m pretty sure I’ve got all the docs & photos needed, they also included a car park service contract, however they only included the couple of last final reminder pcns in the pack not the original pcns.. as i’m still struggling to locate the originals I’ll post a picture of one of the final pcns received( final reminder) & I’ll also add a picture of the signage at the site as I found it very confusing .. the site itself had no hatched areas & no bays to park it just had one big square in the middle where everyone parked, with very faint markings which I also have photos of.. hopefully this would be enough to get this thrown out? Any help would be very appreciated it! Thanks!

[ostell]

Is this residential parking?

The original PCNS are required and not the reminders

The signage is forbidding and is not offering a contract to oar for Unauthorised drivers. With no contract there can be no breach and therefore no charge Read this about forbidding signage but permit holders only

The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.^

[JJ226699]

Ah Ostell that gives me a lot of relief! I’ll dig up the original pcns for you when I get home from work... am I able to add that quote into my defence?? The parking is on a business park/estate from which I used to walk to work from..
i’m building up a rough example of it as we speak so hopefully I’ll be able to post it in here for you to proof read if you wouldn’t mind? Might need some adaptions as i’m not much of a whizz when it comes to wording lol

[ostell]

Yes that forbidding argument, suitably modified goes into your defence. It shows that they did not create a contract with the driver.

[JJ226699]

Perfect thanks so much! Unfortunately I can’t find the original pcn charge & scs nor ukpc didn’t include an original pcn only one of the final reminders for each ticket.. would it be worth requesting another SAR with these included? What are the importance of the original pcns rather than the reminders?

would you mind proof reading my defence is I post it in here?

[ostell]

So you write to them again and tell them that do not appear to have sent you all the documents and please correct. If nothing arrives then assume nothing was sent so they have failed to send a Notice to Keeper within the relevant period and cannot hold the keeper liable. Unless the driver handed you a windscreen ticket

you may care to read this about the excessive charges:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab...0v%20Wilkinson

Post defence on here for critique.

[JJ226699]

Ah ok my bad for the confusion.. the original pcn was actually a windscreen ticket, they had photos in the SAR of the tickets on my windscreen. I will double check if there is photo evidence of the ticket on windscreen for every pcn though..

this is my defence, please appreciate this is my first time with anything so formal lol so there are bound to be errors..

here goes..

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.




The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.

The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to ‘Parking notices’ beginning on the 07/12/16. However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for these charges, in that they do not state what the terms of parking were, or in what way they are alleged to have been breached. The claimant has provided no evidence (other than the poor quality photographs of the vehicle ) that the Defendant was the driver. The defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper under the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 or !!!8216;POFA!!!8217;




The signage on said site is forbidding and is not offering a contract to park for Unauthorised drivers. With no contract there can be no breach and therefore no charge. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.



3 There was no option for non permit holders, such as the defendant, to park at the site. There was also a lack of adequate signage in the middle of the site where the defendant was parked at the time of receiving the pcn. The defendant had no reason to believe they agreed to a contract due to signage being posted on the buildings of said site yet no signage in the middle of the site where photos from the claimant where taken.




Confusing signage at said site. The signage mentions prohibited parking ‘on yellow lines or in an area with hatched markings’ again from photos taken from the claimant it is evident that this was not breached. Nor was the defendant on a yellow line nor in a hatched area.




Poor floor markings also made it difficult for the defendant to judge where the boundaries were in the parking site, as backed up by the claimants photos of the defendants vehicle it is evident there is a lack of upkeep of the parking site. Where the defendant was parked there is no sign confirming for what this space is used for be it customer parking or permit parking only. Some of the markings were in yellow, some in white making it very difficult to distinguish for what purpose this parking spot actually served.




No authority from the land owner to the Claimant have been sent to the Defendant confirming the legality of the claim and charges. In the absence of strict proof of the land owners authority I submit that the Claimant has no grounds for a case at all and invite the court to strike out the claim.




The Claimant is trying to recover additional charges such as legal costs £80.00 and court fees £70.00. The Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Defendant also has reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and is put to strict proof they actually have occurred. As a small claim, the legal costs cannot be recovered and be struck out.




4. The Particulars of Claim set out an incoherent statement of case and the quantum has been enhanced in excess of any sum hidden in small print on the signage that the Claimant may be relying upon. Claiming ‘costs/damages’ on an indemnity basis is stated to be unfair in the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance, CMA37, para 5.14.3. That is the official Government guidance on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('CRA 2015') legislation which must be considered, given the duty in s71. The Defendant avers that the CRA 2015 has been breached due to unfair terms and/or unclear notices (signs), pursuant to s62 and with regard to the requirements for transparency and good faith, and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 and 18 in Sch2. NB: this is different from the UTCCRs considered by the Supreme Court, in that there is now a requirement for contract terms and notices to be fair.

The defendant denies that the sum claimed is recoverable as it is set at a level which is above the costs of recovery or operating the scheme.

The sum claimed is unconscionable and unfair as a result of the Consumer Rights Act 2015; the claim involves an element of double recovery and it is an abuse of the process as it is an inflated claim.

5. It is denied that the exaggerated sum sought is recoverable. The Defendant's position is that this moneyclaim is in part/wholly a penalty, applying the authority in ParkingEye cases (ref: paras 98, 100, 193, 198) ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and para 419 of HHJ Hegarty’s High Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was set at £75 (discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment) then increasing ultimately to £135. Much like the situation in this claim, the business model involved sending a series of automated demands to the keeper. At para 419, HHJ Hegarty found that adding £60 to an already increased parking charge 'would appear to be penal' and unrecoverable. ParkingEye had dropped this punitive enhancement by the time of Mr Beavis' famous parking event.




6. Even if the Claimant had shown the global sum claimed in the largest font on clear and prominent signs - which is denied - they are attempting double recovery of the cost of their standard automated letter-chain. It is denied that the Claimants have expended additional costs for the same letters that the Beavis case decision held were a justification for the (already increased from the discount) parking charge sum of £85.

7. The Claimant cannot be heard to base its charge on the Beavis case, then add damages for automated letter costs; not even if letters were issued by unregulated 'debt recovery' third parties. It is known that parking firms have been misleading the courts with an appeal at Salisbury Court (the Semark-Jullien case) where the Judge merely reset an almost undefended case back for a hearing. He indicated to Judges for future cases, how to consider the CRA 2015 properly and he rightly remarked that the Beavis case was not one that included additional 'costs' per se, but he made no finding of fact about the illegality of adding the same 'automated letter costs' twice. He was not taken by either party to Somerfield in point #5 above and in any event it is worth noting that the lead Southampton case of Britannia v Crosby was not appealed. It is averred that District Judge Grand's rationale remains sound, as long as a court has sufficient facts to properly consider the CRA 2015 s62, 63 and 67 before turning to consider the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Sch4 ('the POFA').

8. Pursuant to Sch4 of the POFA at 4(5), the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper, even in cases where a parking firm has complied with its other requirements (denied in this case). It is worth noting that even though the driver was known in Beavis, the Supreme Court considered the POFA, given that it was the only legislation specifically dealing with parking on private land. There is now also the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 with a new, more robust and statutory Code of Practice being introduced shortly, which evolved because the two Trade Bodies have failed to properly govern this industry.




The ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 case is distinguished

9. Unlike in this case, ParkingEye demonstrated a commercial justification for their £85 private PCN, which included all operational costs, and they were able to overcome the real possibility of the charge being dismissed as punitive and unrecoverable. However, their Lordships were very clear that ‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged’ in such cases.

10. Their decision was specific to what was stated to be a unique set of facts: the legitimate interest/commercial justification, the car park location and prominent and clear signs with the parking charge itself in the largest/boldest text. The unintended consequence is that, rather than persuade courts considering other cases that all parking charges are automatically justified, the Beavis case facts and pleadings (and in particular, the brief and very conspicuous yellow/black signs) set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.

11. Without the Beavis case to support the claim and no alternative calculation of loss/damage, this claim must fail. Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of an overriding legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach.

12. The Supreme Court held that the intention cannot be to punish a motorist - nor to present them with concealed pitfalls, traps, hidden terms or unfair/unexpected obligations - and nor can the operator claim an unconscionable sum. In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of the tests in Beavis.

13. The Claimant’s signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, such that they would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and would also be considered void pursuant to Sch2 of the CRA. Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen, known or agreed.

14. Binding Court of Appeal authorities which are on all fours with a case involving unclear terms and a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of an onerous parking charge, would include:

(i) Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (the ‘red hand rule’ case) and

(ii) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ 2,

both leading authorities confirming that an unseen/hidden clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and

(ii) Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000,

where the Court of Appeal held that it was unsurprising that the appellant did not see the sign ''in view of the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the southern parking space''. In many cases where parking firm Claimants have cited Vine in their template witness statements, they have misled courts by quoting out of context from Roch LJ, whose words related to the Respondent’s losing case, and not from the ratio. To pre-empt that, in fact Miss Vine won because it was held as a fact that she was not afforded a fair opportunity to learn of the terms by which she would be bound.

15. Fairness and clarity are paramount in the new statutory CoP being finalised by the MHCLG and this stance is supported by the BPA and IPC alike. In the November 2020 issue of Parking Review, solicitor Will Hurley, the Chief Executive of the IPC Trade Body, observed: 'Any regulation or instruction either has clarity or it doesn’t. If it’s clear to one person but not another, there is no clarity. The same is true for fairness. Something that is fair, by definition, has to be all-inclusive of all parties involved – it’s either fair or it isn’t. The introduction of a new ‘Code of Practice for Parking’ provides a wonderful opportunity to provide clarity and fairness for motorists and landowners alike." The Defendant's position is that the signs and terms the Claimant is relying upon were not clear, and were in fact, unfair and the Beavis case is fully distinguished.




16. In the alternative, the Claimant is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the relevant land to the Claimant. It is not accepted that the Claimant has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this Claimant to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this Claimant has standing to enforce such charges by means of civil litigation in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.



In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

17. (a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) that any hearing is not vacated but continues as a costs hearing, in the event of a late Notice of Discontinuance. The Defendant seeks a finding of unreasonable behaviour in the pre-and post-action phases by this Claimant, and will seek further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

18. The Defendant invites the court to find that this exaggerated claim is entirely without merit and to dismiss the claim.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

[ostell]

3 You are several times hinting that the defendant was the the driver.

[JJ226699]

Okay if that’s the only issue you can find I am very happy with that lol, is there any particular phrases or wording that you can think of that would be preferred? Thanks again ostell