3K PCN court claim from private parking company

[A.L]

Received a claim form from the county court, Issue date 14th October 2024. Acknowledgement of service submitted 23/10/2024. The claim is for multiple parking charges. I am said to be in breach of the terms on the signs. Failed to obtain a permit in accordance with notified terms. For context, this is at a GP surgery, directly next to a community hospital. The hospital car park has been closed and the GP car park was open with barriers always up. There was a sign inside the hospital that simply read "Parking free today". I was visiting my father in hospital every day, at times returning more than once in the day or staying for long period of time. It is confusing to many as to the parking situation (I am not the only person who didn't know where to park). It's not a paid car park anyway as it only requires a permit that can be obtained inside the GP surgery, I did not go inside the surgery to get one especially as at times I was there in the evenings or night when it was closed.

Any advice on defending this? What do I need to do next?

[des8]

You should send the solicitors a CPR31.14 request and the parking company a subject access request.
There are templates in the SHORTCUTS panel on the right of this page. They will need amending as drafted originally for consumer Credit claims.
When corresponding with the companies (or posting on here)n do not identify the driver.

If you post up a redacted copy of the claim form, a photo of the signs with all the wording legible and a redacted copy of a Notice to Keeper we can assist in drafting your defence

[A.L]

Thank you for your reply. I am little confused about what to put in the CPR 31.14 document, it lists three options in the draft document. On my claim form, the particulars of claim simply reference "The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle in breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Failed to obtain a permit in accordance with the notified terms." So do I just request for the "contract"?

I am happy to post the claim form and notice to keeper, I will collect photos tomorrow. However I have already drafted a defence using a template and some AI, could I post that on here for to be reviewed?

Thank you for your help with this, I couldn't keep up with any of this due to my fathers health and long stay in hospital and am struggling to stay on top of this so help is sincerely appreciated.

[des8]

I suspect that claim form also refers to "PCN(s)"; so you require copies of those as well as the signs.
You could also ask for a copy of the contract authorising the parking company to operate on that site.
Items 2 & 3 in the template refer to consumer credit cases and of no import to you here.

By all means post up your draft defence (redacted) and not identifying the driver

[A.L]

Thank you here is a redacted draft

[des8]

Had a very quick glance at your defence and note that in para 3 you identify the Defendant (yourself) as the driver, so you can forget about POFA as it does not apply

Was your draft defence based on MSE post?

[A.L]

Thank you for having a look, yes I used a template from MSE. Would you advise that I don't identify as the driver? Am I right in saying I am would not have to identify the driver if I do not claim to be driver? Have attached images of parking signs.

[des8]

With a sign like that at the car park I probably would be concentrating on its forbidding nature

Can you please post up a redacted copy of the claim form (if it's from DCBL I can probably guess the wording)

[A.L]

Sure here is the claim form thank you

[des8]

I'll draft up an alternative defence for you to consider over the next couple of days.
There's plenty of time, and you might need to amend anything drafted if they respond to your requests

[A.L]

Thank you so much for your help I sincerely appreciate it. Please do let me know if you take payment for your time and efforts. I believe I need to be submitted by 11th November?

[des8]

1. Unless otherwise stated in this Defence
   i) the Defendant uses the same terminology as the Claimant has employed in the Particulars of Claim; an
   ii) the Defendant denies each and every allegation or that the Claimant is entitled to any relief.
2. iii) all references to paragraph numbers are to paragraph numbers in the Particulars of Claim

INTRODUCTION

1. This claim has been issued against the Defendant in connection with the Defendant’s refusal to pay 15 private parking charges which the Claimant alleges that the Defendant is liable to pay either as the driver of the vehicle or as the registered keeper. For the reasons set out in this Defence, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the sums claimed or any relief at all.

CLAIMANT’S NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES

1. By way of general comment, it should be noted that whilst the Defendant intends to respond to the issues raised by the Claimant in the Particulars of Claim, he cannot do so with complete accuracy because the Claimant has not pleaded its case in accordance with CPR 16.4(1)(a). There is not a concise statement of the facts which discloses a cause of action, which in thurn makes it difficult for the Defendant to respond as he does not know or understand the basis of the Claimant’s case. For example, the particulars allege that the Defendant:
   1. entered into a contract with the Claimant but does not explain how or on what basis the contract was entered into;
   2. is liable as the driver of the vehicle but does not indicate the basis of that allegation
   3. is liable as the registered keeper of the vehicle yet the Claimant has failed to particularise the basis of that allegation.
2. The Defendant is surprised by the haziness of the particulars given that the Claimant is represented professionally by a firm of solicitors and as such, the lack of compliance with the CPR to formulate proper particulars cannot be excused. The court is invited to consider its general case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.1 to:

1. 1. make an order that unless the Defendant files and serves an amended Particulars of Claim compliant with CPR 16.4(1)(a) within 14 days of said order, then the claim shall be struck out and judgment entered in favour of the Defendant; or
   2. if the court considers it appropriate, to strike out the claim entirely as on the basis that the claim discloses no reasonable grounds for a cause of action; and
   3. exercise any other case management powers the court sees fit.

RELEVANT FACTS

1. It is admitted the Defendant was the keeper of the vehicle at the relevant times.

2. The on-site signage states "Patient Parking Only" & "General Public Parking is not permitted"
There is no offer for to park there and it is not possible to contract to do something which is forbidden. No breach of contract has occurred in this case.

3. The BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice states (clause 19.2) ‘a standard form of entrance sign must be placed at the entrance to the parking area’. There is no signage at the entrance of the parking area informing motorists they are entering into a ‘contract’.


APPLICABLE LAW

1. Section 56 together with Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) provides landowners with powers to manage parking on their land. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 of POFA stipulates that the liability for an unpaid parking charge may only be transferred from the driver to the registered keeper of the vehicle if certain conditions as prescribed in Schedule 4 are met.

LIABILITY AS THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE

1Despite the Defendant requesting proof from the Claimant of the allegation, the Claimant has so far failed to provide any supporting evidence that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time. Accordingly, the
Claimant’s allegation is entirely baseless and nothing more than a fishing expedition in which the Defendant considers
to be an abuse of process.

2Without prejudice to the foregoing paragraph, the Claimant has failed to provide evidence establishing that:

1. 1. the Claimant has authority to manage and enforce the car park by way of issuing parking charge notices pursuant to condition 5(1)(a) of POFA 2012; and
   2. the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle on the day that the Parking Charge was incurred.
2. In the absence of the such evidence, it is the Defendant’s contention – and the court is invited to make an inference that – the Claimant has no lawful basis to pursue the Defendant as the driver of the vehicle.
3. If (which the Defendant denies), the Defendant is found to be liable for the Parking Charge, the Defendant will say that the Parking Charge is not enforceable on the basis that the on site signage was not capable of forming a contract

Recovery of Claimant’s costs associated with the Parking Charge

1The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to claim the recovery of its costs in respect of the Parking
Charge. As described above, there was no signage offering parking so no terms and conditions could be
applicable

2Further and alternatively, if (which is denied) it is found that the Claimant is entitled to claim the recovery of its
costs, the Defendant will say that the term was contrary to the requirement of good faith which causes a significant
imbalance under the contract to the detriment of the Defendant. Consequently, the term is unfair and is not binding on
the Defendant pursuant to section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Defendant will rely on the following
points:

1. 1. Section 68 of the CRA2015 requires that every term of a consumer contract must be transparent and expressed in a plain and intelligible language. The Defendant contends that the term referring to the charges on the signage was neither transparent nor intelligible in that:
      1. the font size of the term is extremely small making it illegible from a reasonable distance; the term ought to have been presented in a manner which was far more legible; and
      2. the term refers to ‘charges’ but fails to explain what charges the Claimant is seeking to recover. Accordingly, the term described is vague and ambiguous contrary to the guidance published by the Competition and Markets Authority on unfair contract terms.

3. 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).
4. 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))

LIABILITY AS THE REGISTERED KEEPER

1. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled recover the Parking Charge from the Defendant as registered keeper of the vehicle and repeats the claimant has failed to provide evidence establishing that he has authority to manage and enforce the car park by way of issuing parking charge notices pursuant to condition 5(1)(a) of POFA 2012;

2.The Claimant is put to proof that the PCNs complied with the conditions required by POFA 2012 to transfer liability for any unpaid charge from driver to registered keeper.

3.Contrary to condition PoFA 2012 Sch4 sec 5(1)(b), the Claimant knew the identity of the driver prior to the commencement of these proceedings. In the particulars of claim, the Claimant represents that “the Defendant was 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 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)

Recovery of Claimant’s costs associated with the Parking Charge

1. To the extent that the Claimant seeks to recover the costs incurred in pursuing the Parking Charge, the Defendant denies that such sums are recoverable for the following reasons:
   1. The costs sought by the Claimant are based upon a contractual right under the terms of the parking contract. It is well established under the doctrine of privity that a person who is not party to the contract cannot sue or be sued. Any contractual relationship in respect of the parking and the alleged contravention was solely between the Claimant and the driver of the vehicle, not the registered keeper; and
   2. paragraph 4(5) of POFA 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. The unpaid parking charges specified in the notice were £100.
2. It follows that any liability owed by the keeper to the Claimant is several to the driver’s liability and is limited to an amount that does not exceed the unpaid parking charges. The Claimant’s pursuit of these contractual costs is not recoverable and amounts to an abuse of process.

CONCLUSION
1. There was no intention, nor offer, to form a contract for parking and by reason of the Defendant’s not proving compliance with the POFA requirements as set out in this Defence, the Claimant is not entitled to pursue the Defendant as either the registered keeper or the driver of the vehicle for the Parking Charges.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH


My defence would be as above.
Whether you chose to use it, or part of it, or none of it is entirely your decision.
It will be you in court (if they don't discontinue) so use what you understand and with which are comfortable.

These firms often take matters to the edge, sometimes bailing out or just not turning up for the hearing.
For them it is a matter of numbers... some they win, others they lose

[A.L]

Thank you for drafting this, few questions:

1. I have still not submitted the CPR 31.14 request, is this still required for me to do?
2. What does this mean:

2. The on-site signage states "Patient Parking Only" & "General Public Parking is not permitted"
There is no offer for to park there and it is not possible to contract to do something which is forbidden. No breach of contract has occurred in this case.

3. And what does this mean: "there was no signage offering parking so no terms and conditions could be applicable"

4. Would you recommend I merge the draft you created with the one I uploaded (of course removing any overlaps or contradictions)?

5. I think you haven't mentioned anything relating to the fact there is no financial loss for the claimant, is there a reason you haven't mentioned that?

Thank you once again for your help

[A.L]

Is it better I don't mention about the parking is free sign as I supposed that means I was the driver?

Is it worth mentioning about the no proof of delivery for the notifying letters? So letters may not have been received or could've been delayed.

I have also just noticed that the Issue dates on some of initial PCN letters are over a month from the incident date. For example Issue date 19/09/2024 and incident date 26/4/2024. Does that help the defence in anyway?

[des8]

Thank you for drafting this, few questions:

1. I have still not submitted the CPR 31.14 request, is this still required for me to do?
No point now as it was meant to flush out the documents which they intend to rely on for bringing the case. it could have helped with drafting the defence
2. What does this mean:

2. The on-site signage states "Patient Parking Only" & "General Public Parking is not permitted"
There is no offer for to park there and it is not possible to contract to do something which is forbidden. No breach of contract has occurred in this case.
It means what it says. The claim is for breach of terms on the signs(the contract)
However that sign is not capable of forming a contract. There is no offer to park for the general public (the driver was not a patient)
So the driver could not have breached a non existent contract

3. And what does this mean: "there was no signage offering parking so no terms and conditions could be applicable"
As point 2 above

4. Would you recommend I merge the draft you created with the one I uploaded (of course removing any overlaps or contradictions)?
Up to you, but be careful about contradicting yourself. I don't recommend, just show options

5. I think you haven't mentioned anything relating to the fact there is no financial loss for the claimant, is there a reason you haven't mentioned that?
Because IMO it is not moot.
The landowners intention was probably to offer free Parking to patients, but to discourage others filling the car park to charge an exorbitant amount.
Now his signage doesn't manage to do that, and I feel by trying to distinguish between a charge and a penalty is to go down the wrong rabbit hole.
My opinion only, but have you read the Beavis case to which you refer. The first 100 paragraphs deal with the matter of a penalty or not.

Thank you once again for your help

Responses in red