£1918 PCN Court Claim for not renewing a free parking permit

[talentedbird]

Hi all,

Yesterday had the displeasure of getting a court claim letter from Civil National Business Centre (picture attached fig. 7) and trying to figure out my options, I feel really out of my depth on this.

To give a bit of background: Between 2022-2023 I lived in an apartment complex where the resident parking required a parking permit. Initially this permit did not need renewing but after a year the parking management company was changed and everyone needed to re-register on a different system. On this new system you now needed to renew your parking permit every 12 months. I wasn't aware the permit expired for 3 months until I have received letters from DCBL informing me that there are 9 outstanding PCNs. The reason I didn't even get the initial PCNs is that I didn't update the address on my V5C and only did it on my diving licenses so I assume all the letters went to the old address, this meant that I never got a chance to dispute the PCNs as they had already gone to DCBL once I was made aware of them.

As mentioned I don't really know much about the laws and regulations around this but from my perspective I have 2 stronger points of defense:
1. Each resident is entitled to one parking spot and this is in my tenancy agreement (picture attached fig.1). Wouldn't this take precedence over any "parking contract" you enter into when entering the car park?
2. There was official communication from the building management that any PCNs issued due to permit expiring will be cancelled (picture attached fig. 2). There were so many people that didn't renew their permit which just shows that the communication and reminders were inadequate or non-existent. There are endless posts on the residents FB page about this company ripping us all off.

Somewhat weaker defense points:
1. The amount being asked is absurd for something that is a free parking permit. Can I not claim that this is unfair?
2. No reminders were sent out about permits expiring in the first place despite their portal indicating that they would be. (picture attached fig. 3)
3. Confusing messaging from customer support about whether permit renewal is required or not. (picture attached fig. 4)
4. BaySentry, the company managing the parking lists an invalid email address on their website where they state disputes should be sent to. (picture attached fig. 5)

I have also attached the letter of claim from DCBL (fig. 6)

Additional questions:
How badly could this affect my credit score if I fight this and lose my defense?
Any recommendations on who I could contact to get legal advice? Is this even a good idea, or will I just sink more money into this and end up having to pay anyways?

This whole situation is seriously depressing, the fact the residents pay this company to manage the parking so we, the residents, can park without issues to then by "fined" by the same company is seriously twisted and it boggles my mind how this is allowed. Any guidance on this would be very appreciated!

[talentedbird]

Attachments:

[des8]

For starters acknowledge the claim but do not enter a defence at this stage.
then send a CPR31.14 request to DCBL and a Subject Access Request to Baysentry (templates which need amending for your situation are in the SHORTCUTS panel on the right of this page)
Do not identify the driver when writing to them (or on here in later posts)

Is that posted snippet the only paragraph in your lease which refers to parking ?

When you get replies 9or a week before your defence is due in) post them up, together with any signs at the location

[talentedbird]

Thanks for your help!

Yes the only other bit is this:

4.6.2 Return all keys, access devices, remotes and parking permits to the Property on the last day of
possession (or sooner by mutual arrangement).

I might have some pictures of signs at the location from about a year ago, not sure if I can find them. Or would it be better to take some pictures of the signs now?

[des8]

the signs at the time of the incidents would be better, but only if they are fully legible (that includes the small writing!).
If you can't find the originals you should obtain them anyway as a result of your CPR 31.14 request

[talentedbird]

Thank you! I have found some pictures which have all the details but are a few months after the incidents happened.

I'm just working on the CPR request and the last paragraph mentions a CCA request, is this a third letter I should be sending to BaySentry?
1. SAR to BaySentry
2. CCA request to BaySentry
3. CPR request to DCBL

Is that correct?

[des8]

No need to send CCA request as this is not a "Consumer Credit Act" matter

[talentedbird]

Hi, unfortunately I had sent the CCA together with the other letter, hope that doesn't cause any issues.

As requested I have no gotten a response letter so I'm posting that together with pictures of the signs at the location etc.

Thanks again for your help, if there is anything else you need or if there is anything I can do please let me know.

[des8]

OK, you still have a couple of weeks before a defence needs to be filed
I'll draft something up early next week for you to use as you see fit

[des8]

I would work my defence along the following lines:


.The Defendant received the claim xxx from BAYSENTRY SOLUTIONS Ltd (C) on dd/mm/yy

1. .Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.
2. The defendant avers the Claimant's statement of case firstly fails to give adequate information to enable the Defendant to properly assess the Defendant's position with regards the claim and secondly has failed to properly plead its case in accordance with
   
   CPR 16.4(1)(a)
   Specifically the Particulars of Claim:
   i state that the claim is for unpaid parking and contractual costs and refers to 9 parking charge Notices
   
   ii. the Particulars of Claim alleges that the Defendant is liable as the Driver or the Keeper of the vehicle but fails to provide any reasons on which the Claimant relies upon to prove such liabilities.
3. It is well established that the Claimant must provide adequate pleadings and include all essential ingredients of the cause of action so as to enable the Defendant to understand the case against them. The Particulars of Claim, as drafted, are inadequate which makes it difficult for the Defendant to respond as she does not know or understand the basis of the Claimant’s case.
4. Further, the Defendant is surprised by the poor drafting of the particulars given that the Claimant is represented professionally by a firm of solicitors and so the lack of compliance with the CPR 16.4(1)(a) to formulate proper particulars cannot be excused. Accordingly, the court is invited to consider its general case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.1 to:
   1. make an order that unless the Claimant (i) files and re-serves an amended Particulars of Claim compliant with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and (ii) provide the necessary documentation in order for The Defendant to fully plead her case within 14 days of said order, then the claim shall be struck out and judgment entered in favour of the Defendant;
   2. If the Claimant should comply with such an order , the Defendant will then be in a position to amend her defence, and would ask that the Claimant bears the costs of the amendment.
      Or
   3. if the court considers it appropriate, to strike out the claim in whole or in part, as the basis that the claim discloses no reasonable grounds for a cause of action; and
   4. exercise any other case management powers the court sees fit
   5. Without prejudice to the foregoing paragraphs, the Defendant intends to respond to the allegations raised in the Particulars of Claim as best he is able.
   
   
   
   
   Defendant’s liability as the driver of the vehicle
5. .In the Particulars of Claim, the Claimant pursues the defendant as the driver, so it is fair to assume the Claimant has actual and/or constructive knowledge of the driver’s identity.
   However the Claimant has failed to produce any supporting evidence that demonstrates the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle when the alleged contravention(s) took place. It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant is ignorant of the driver's identity and his allegations are nothing more than a fishing expedition
6. The Claimant asserts there was a breach of contract as "Reason: parked with NO Valid Parking Session/electronic Permit" (sic)
   
   
   
   7The Defendant avers that his lease gives him the right to park his vehicle on the site without the need to have such a document.
   
   8 The defendant did not contract with the claimant at any time
   
   9 Further the Defendant will say the signs were incapable of forming a contract as they were forbidding in nature.
   
   10 A sign stating "PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY" inevitably means those without such permits may not park.
   
   11 If there is a contradictory sign (which the Defendant denies) any ambiguity should be resolved in accordance with the principle "contra proferentem"
   
   
   .Defendant’s liability as the keeper
   
   
   
   12. The Defendant admits to being the keeper of vehicle registration number xxxxxx
   13.The claimant fails to state how the liability for an unpaid parking charge may be transferred f from the driver to the keeper of a vehicle
   
   14. The Claimant has failed to deliver a copy of all or any of the original Parking Charge Notices altho' in receipt of a CPR 31.14 request by letter/email dated dd/mm/yy
   
   
   
   15, The Claimant claims to know the identity of the driver prior to the commencement of these proceedings as In the particulars of claim, the Claimant pursues the Defendant as the driver of the vehicle”. In light of that allegation, it is implied that the Claimant has actual knowledge of the driver’s identity and so the Defendant cannot be held liable for the Parking Charge as the registered keeper, and the Claimant must pursue the driver of the vehicle only. The Defendant will seek to rely on condition 5(1)9b) of PoFA2012 and paragraph 221 of the POFA 2012 Explanatory Notes, which states that:
   
   … The creditor is not obliged to pursue unpaid parking charges through this scheme and may seek to do so through other means but they may not use the scheme provided for here to secure double recovery of unpaid parking charges (paragraph 4(6)), nor will they have the right to pursue the keeper, as opposed to the driver, of the vehicle where they have sufficient details of the driver’s identity (emphasis added)
   
   
   16 Further and alternatively, the Defendant contends that the Claimant has failed to comply with the mandatory conditions under POFA 2012 in order for the registered keeper to be held liable for the Parking Charge in that Contrary to condition Schedule 4 5(1)(a) of POFA 2012, the Claimant failed to provide evidence that it has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the Parking Charge. The Claimant has indicated that there is a written contract between the Claimant and the landowner but the Claimant has failed to supply such a copy of the written contract setting out the Claimant’s authority to enforce and/or pursue the Parking Charge against the driver;
   
   Recovery of Claimant’s unspecified costs
   
   
   17. As no breakdown of how the amount claimed has been calculated the following figures have been taken from the car park signs
   18.:If the Defendant is being sued as Keeper the Claimant is only entitled to recover the Parking charge as Schedule 4 condition 4(5) of POFA 2012 provides that the maximum amount which may be recovered from the registered keeper is the total amount of the unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to the registered keeper. Therefore, any associated costs in incurred by the Claimant in connection with the PCN are not recoverable.
   
   As the Claimant has not delivered copies of the PCNs to the Defendant, the Defendant has noted the maximum charge shown on any sign is £100. Therefore the maximum that could be due (which is not admitted) is £900
   
   19. Alternatively, if the Defendant is being sued as the driver, the Defendant asserts the “additional costs” term on the parking sign is contrary to the requirement of good faith and causes a significant imbalance under the contract to the detriment of the Defendant.
   
   Section 68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.( CRA 2015) requires that every term of a consumer contract must be transparent and expressed in a plain and intelligible language.
   
   20The Defendant contends that the term referring to the charges on the signage was neither transparent nor intelligible in that it only refers to unspecified additional costs.
   
   21.It fails to explain what costs the claimant seeks to recover, and is also contrary to CRA2015 Schedule2 (10 & 14)
   
   22.Consequently, the term is unfair and is not binding on the Defendant pursuant to section 62 of the CRA2015)
   
   23.In Parking Eye vs Beavis ([2015] UKSC 67. Case ID. UKSC 2015/0116. the S C found the parking charge (£85) was a genuine estimate of the costs of operating the parking scheme including losses suffered by the operator if its terms and conditions were not complied with (see paras 188 and 193 of the judgment).
   
   24.In this claim unspecified costs additional to the parking charge may involve an element of double recovery and is an abuse of process that may taint the entirety of the claim and permit the Court to strike out the claim (CPR3 4 (2) (b) )
   
   
   25. Whilst not binding on this court the Defendant respectfully refers to the following case: G4QZ465V (Excel Parking Services Ltd vs Wilkinson - 1st July 2020) where District Judge Jackson considered a similar claim to be an abuse of process under The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Sch 2 and section 61(1)/ (7). He found that striking out the claim was the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court could be shown
7. 26.the Defendant denies that the claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all
   
   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.
   
   
   
   
   SIGNED …………………………………………..
   
   Dated
8. You may or may not wish to use that draft, or amend it .It is only the way I would approach the matter.
9. if you use it you will need to type it up in better shape (i am not good with computers, hence the odd numbers floating around!), and also understand it for when you are in court1

[talentedbird]

Thank you so much for the draft DES8! I have now amended it and corrected the formatting no worries there. It all makes sense to me and I can go through the form online to submit my defense.

I did have some questions around what the next steps might look like after the submission. You said "understand it for when you are in court", but I was under the impression that that was the very last step in the process, sort of a "if all else fails". Is there somewhere I could read up on the full process and what to expect? Not even sure what to google.

[des8]

The next step will be a court document "Directions Questionnaire" (form N180) giving you instructions.

You will later have to write a "Witness statement" giving your version of what has happened.

You will then receive a hearing date, which you should attend.

We can guide you through the process but here are links to a couple of publications you might find useful (obviously not all the contents apply to your case).
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/...+web+FINAL.pdf
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/..._in_Person.pdf

[talentedbird]

Thanks again for the additional info

I've submitted my defence and have been contacted by the Claimant's legal team:
response2.png

I was under the impression that evidence will be submitted to court instead. Should I send it over to them as they requested? Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

[des8]

There is no reason not to show them as they will see it eventually anyway, and courts expect both parties to try and resolve matters before the court hearing

So send a redacted copy of your tenancy agreement and stress that it gives you the right to one parking place monitored by ANPR camera and nothing about obtaining &/or displaying a permit

[talentedbird]

I've sent a copy but haven't heard back from them, should I be chasing or is it in my benefit if they don't end up responding to me or the court?