Horizon Parking > Gladstones > County Court

[mrwing]

Hi All,

I could do with some advice as I really do not know who to turn to or what to do next. I'll try keep it brief and short but detailed.

Every Thursday I attend Kick Boxing class in Bletchley in Milton Keynes where classes start 6.30pm. I usually get into the car park around 6pm or just a few minutes before and from what I remember the tariff is 20p per hour and free parking after 6pm.

1. On my first occasion attending the class I had parked on the street which is free after 6pm
2. Second occasion parking, I realised they had a car park available which is camera controlled and I had entered car park 5.57PM and someone said it is free parking after 6pm.
3. Third occasion I had entered the car park 5.54pm to which I didn't bother checking the machine for free parking.

14th June 2017 I had received a letter from Horizon Parking to which stated I had entered the car park and did not pay for parking etc etc.

I had disputed this with HORIZON PARKING stating that on the website it had stated "first 20 minutes of parking" is free which would have taken me past 6pm and any parking after 6pm is free as per the information on the tariff board and online. HORIZON PARKING come back and said no I still need to pay as I entered on the grounds of the contract and had to pay for parking. I had then responded back to them stating here is the proof of first 20 mins are free and stating what about the "grace period" entitlement of every customer who enters the car park. HORIZON PARKING come back and said no. (this was all communicated through email which I do have I hope). I had also stated my intention was not to park without paying. I was simply aware that the free parking is free after 6pm and was there purely to attend class and asked if this could be waived and stated the logical side that I would of just paid the 20p if I knew it would have incurred this fine of £60, but I went on the assumption on point 2. entering the car park 3 mins earlier and it was free parking, it would then be free parking again 6 minutes before 6pm.

HORIZON PARKING then had escalated the matter to DRP who i again disputed with the same evidence and proof that "first 20 minutes" free and free parking after 6pm. DRP come back saying no and stated the obvious. At that time i looked into them and as a debt recovering company they would hassle to get money in. I got frustrated and said if they can heavily discount I will pay as I wanted rid of it, as that time the fine was £127.50.

Further down the line I then receive letters from GLADSTONES SOLICITORS where it stated letter before court and demanding payment, if not it will escalate to Court stages. I then seeked some friendly solicitor advice from a friend who does not specialise in parking tickets and attempted to respond to them. GLADSTONE SOLICITORS then sent another letter of the same which I assumed its the standard template they had just used again which i then ignored.

I then receive letter from the County Court with actions which needs to be taken within next 14 days

Please can someone help me as I think I do have somewhat a valid case, but if I don't please let me know and I will just pay the total fine, otherwise I will continue to head to Citizen Advice Bureau on Monday 12th.

Just to add additionally I have received parking fines in the past from council and tried disputing, rejected and I paid.

Regards

Mr Wing

[mrwing]

Hi,

Here is the particulars of the claim. Please can I get some feedback.


"The driver of the vehicle with registration xxxxxxx (the ‘Vehicle’) parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the ‘Contract’) at Brunel Centre Bletchley Milton Keynes MK2 2JS on 08/06/2017 thus incurring the parking charge (the ‘PCN’). The driver of the Vehicle agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days of issue yet failed to do so. The claimant claims the unpaid PCN from the defendant as the driver/keeper of the vehicle. Despite demands being made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. The claimant claims £80 for the PCN, £70 contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £25 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8.00% per annum, continuing at £0.03 per day. "

[mrwing]

Hi,

If I could pick some of the legal and intelligent brains please, this is my draft defence which I have put together from using previous defences.



BETWEEN:
Horizon Parking (Claimant)
vs
xxxxxxx (Defendant)

__________________________________________________ _______________________
1. I am Mr xxxxxxx, defendant in this matter.

2. The claim is denied in its entirety except where explicitly admitted here. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to the Claimant's case.

3. The particulars of the claim stated the driver of the vehicle parked in breach of the terms stipulating on the signage. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

4. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

5. The Particulars of Claim do not give any reasons as to why the Claimant requires a payment other than it results from breaching the terms of parking on the land. Signage displayed on the sites that are forbidding signs cannot create a contract.

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation. The question lies to what means has the claimant got to operate on the land and to issues parking charge notices.

7. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £75, for which the calculation or explanation is unfeasible. It is abuse of process from the claimant to issue an inflated claim for an additional sum which is not entitled to recover.

8. The Defendant has reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim. The claimant created uncertainty over De-Minimis as a ground of defence; the unclear stipulations on the signage denoting free parking and allegations made against the defendant ‘agreeing to pay the charge’ which the defendant denies as there were no communication, agreement in writing, and or verbal, in order to claim losses.

9. On the date of the claimed loss, there was no parking charge levied during the hours of which the defendant was on the premises, and there was no physical damage caused. There can have been no loss arising from this incident. Neither can the claimant lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed. The defendant contends there can be no loss shown; no pre-estimate (prior to the vehicle ‘parked in breach’ at this site) has been prepared or considered in advance.

10. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. The claimant’s particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the defendant’s position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence statement are true