Hello Everyone - parking charge notice & northampton county court

[martox]

Just joined your forum a few days ago. I've received a "Claim Form" issued by Civil Enforcement Ltd of Liverpool through Northampton County Court - Date of Service 14/7/14 relating to a parking offence of being in a Pay & Display carpark for 2 hours & 2 minutes when the maximum stay was 2 hours (I had bought & displayed the appropriate ticket but have been captured by ANPR). Amount claimed £165 = £130 + £35 court fees.
I've ignored previous correspondence on advice from various sources/forums but am concerned at this latest unexpected turn of events.

How do these people know who was driving my car & how is aytone to know that the 2 hours maximum allowed includes finding a space, walkingto/from ticket machine to get a pay & display ticket and leaving the carpark ?
Advice on what to do/how to play this would be most welcome.

[mystery1]

Re: Hello Everyone - parking charge notice & northampton county court

Log on to the court site and file acknowledgement of service as it gives you 14 extra days to prepare your defence.

Can you put up the particulars of claim, any letters and pictures of signs if possible (excluding name and address)

Is it a co-op site ? Did you previously get a letter assigning the "debt" to a company called deal ?

M1

[martox]

Re: Hello Everyone - parking charge notice & northampton county court

Thanks mystery1, I'll have a go at filing the acknowledgement online.

Particulars of Claim (attached)(to follow)
1.The claimant has a contract with The Co-operative Group Limited of 1 Angel Sq etc to manage the Car Park at (address quoted)
2.The Car Park is private property. The claimant uses automatic number plate recognition ("ANPR") cameras within the car park. ANPR cameras work by capturing images of the text displayed on vehicles' number plates.
3.In the car park there are many clear and visible signs displayed advising drivers of the terms and charges applicable when parking in the car park.Drivers are permitted to park in the car park in accordance with terms displayed on the signage. These signs constitute an offer by the claimant to enter into a contract with drivers.
4. The claimants ANPR cameras recorded the Defendant's vehicle, reg number xxx etc in the car park.
The defendant's vehicle entered the car park on 1/8/13 at 14.56 and left the car park on 1/8/13 at 16.59. The vehicle had been parked in the car park for 2 hours and 2 minutes.
5.When the defendant parked their vehicle in the car park they accepted by their conduct the claimant's offer as set out on the signage
6.As a result of the defendants conduct a charge was incurred.
7.The defendant has not paid the outstanding charge
8.Costs escalated further as a result of non-payment
9.Further the claimant claims interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 on the amount found to be due to the Claimantat such rate and for such period as the court sees fit.
AND the Claimant claims
1.£130
2.Alternatively damages for breach of contract
3.Alternatively to 1 and 2 above damages for trespass
Interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 to be assessed.


I'm afraid I don't have any pictures of signage - the car park is about 250 miles from where I live & would have been used while on holiday in that part of the country.

And yes I did get a letter around the beginning of this year assigning 87.5% of the "debt" to Debt enforcement & Action Limited.

I hope this helps

martox

[mystery1]

Re: Hello Everyone - parking charge notice & northampton county court

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...light=murrells

I would also write to CEL pointing out that they assigned 87.5% of the "debt" and as such the person who signed the claim form has signed a statement of truth without an honest belief in it's truth. Contempt of court is a possibility. Hopefully they'll drop it rather than the co-op paying it, as above, as we don't really want such a grubby operation to profit at all.

M1

[martox]

Re: Hello Everyone - parking charge notice & northampton county court

Thanks for the reply mystery1

I've followed your link & will email the guy at Co-op expressing dismay at the heavy handed approach over the 2 minute breach !

With regard to acknowledging service my Claim Form has been issued via CCMCC in Salford and I can't see there is any electronic link to reply/acknowledge. Presumably I'll just have to send off the paper version N9 that is enclosed ticking box 1 intending to defend all of this claim.

At what stage should I file my defence & how ? I'll be out of the country for the first 2 weeks of August.

I've noticed now that on the Claim Form the "preferred court for hearings" is quoted as Barnet Civil and Family Court Centre - any significance in that?

Good point about the assignment of part of the debt and therefore the inaccuracy of the claim.

Martox

[mystery1]

Re: Hello Everyone - parking charge notice & northampton county court

Give the Co-op 9-10 days and then come back so we can get a defence sorted for you.

I forgot they don't use MCOL but rather the old fashioned paper method. Once/if you reach allocation your local court will become the venue for any trial.

Don't forget to contact CEL and ask about the statement of truth :okay:


M1

[martox]

Re: Hello Everyone - parking charge notice & northampton county court

Further guidance required, please, M1.
I've had 2 emails from Co-op saying they will pay CEL and then that a cheque would be sent on 24th July.
I have acknowledged service to the court.
My problem though is that my 28 days from the date of service on the claim (14/7/14) will be up on the 11th August but I'll be away from the 2nd August until the 15th so should I file a defence this week just in case and if so how do I do that?

I've heard nothing back from CEL regarding their statement of truth...

Martox

[mystery1]

Re: Hello Everyone - parking charge notice & northampton county court

http://www.compactlaw.co.uk/free-leg...t.html#Defence


DEFENCE


1. Save as specifically admitted in this defence the Defendant denies each and every allegation set outin the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre action correspondence.


2. I am the Defendant, xxxxx, a brain surgeon.

3. I am the registered keeper of vehicle, registration number xxxxx and was the driver on xxxxx

4. I have no knowledge of paragraph 1. The claimant is put to strict proof that they have a valid contract with the landowners. If they do not have a proprietary interest in the land they have no locus standi to bring a court claim.

5. Paragraph 2 is outside my knowledge and is neither admitted nor denied.. The claimant is put to strict proof.

6. Paragraph 3 is neither admitted nor denied however I did buy a ticket for 2 hours parking which i did not exceed. The claimant is put to strict proof they are entitled to enter in to a contract. Any contract must have offer, acceptance and consideration both ways. There is no consideration from Civil Enforcement Ltd to motorist; The gift of parking is the landowner’s, not Civil Enforcement Ltd’s. There is no consideration from motorist to Civil Enforcement Ltd. Any fees for parking are due to the landowner and not Civil Enforcement Ltd.

7. Paragraph 4 is denied in as far as I paid for 2 hours parking on xxxx. It took longer than 2 minutes to from entrance to parking to payment as well as passing the camera upon exit. I deny that i was parked for over 2 hours. I have no knowledge of the claimants systems.


8. Paragraph 7 is admitted on the basis that I believe no charge is due.

9. Paragraphs 6, 8 & 9 are denied for the following reasons.

A. I did not park for 2 hours and 2 minutes. I bought 2 hours of parking time. Upon entry I took time to park and purchase time and then time again to exit. The cameras are located at the entrance/exit and not at the parking bay. In any event the "de minimis" principle should apply amd the court should not be concerned by an insignificant amount such as 2 minutes.

B. The sign was not an offer but a threat of a punitive sanction to dissuade drivers from parking without payment and was therefore a penalty clause. It was not an offer to pay for a period of parking. The charge was held to be a penalty in the appeal ruling of Civil Enforcement Limited v McCafferty Their claim is based on damages for alleged breach of contract. It is a fundamental principle of English Law that a party who suffers damages through breach of contract can only seek through court action to be put back in the same position as they would have been if the breach had not occurred. In order to do so, they must demonstrate their actual, or genuine, pre-estimate of loss. I submit that no loss has been suffered by the Claimant as a result of any alleged breaches of contract on my part. Any losses are due to the landholder, not the Claimant. I further submit that the loss to the landholder is zero or negligible.

C. A charge of £130 is above and beyond that which the British Parking Association expects and is a trade association of which Civil Enforcement Ltd are a member. 19.5/6 of the trades code of practice states "If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance.


19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. If it is more than the recommended amount in 19.5 and is not justified in advance, it could lead to an investigation by The Office of Fair Trading. "



Case Law Relied Upon:


a) With regard to point 4 & 6, there are two Court of Appeal judgments of note, ParkingEye v Somerfield [2012 EWCA Civ 1338] and HMRC v VCS [2013 EWCA Civ 186]. In the first, the court ruled that the parking company could not take legal action in their own name. In the second the court ruled they could. The nature of the relationship between landowner and car park operator, and the wording of the contract between them, is key to distinguishing these two cases. It is instructive therefore to compare the current relationship between ParkingEye and landowner, and the wording of the contract, to see whether this more closely resembles ParkingEye v Somerfield or HMRC v VCS. The defendant submits that it is obvious the relationship is more like the ParkingEye v Somerfield case. In 3JD04329 ParkingEye v Martin (12/05/2014 St Albans) District Judge Cross found ParkingEye’s contract to be more like the Somerfield case than VCS v HMRC, and
dismissed the claim. No transcript is currently available.



b) With regard to point 9 I rely upon the following cases and evidence:


OBServices v Thurlow (Worcester County Court, 2011) (Appeal hearing before Circuit Judge).3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke (Barrow-in-Furness, 19/12/2013) Deputy District Judge Buckley ruled that the amount charged was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss as any loss was to the landowner and not the Claimant. “The problem which the present Claimants have, however, in making this assessment is that on any view, any loss is not theirs but that of the land owners or store owners”


3JD02555 ParkingEye v Pearce (Barrow-in-Furness, 19/12/2013) This case followed on from the previous case and Deputy District Judge Buckley ruled the same way.(No transcript is available)


3JD04791 ParkingEye Ltd v Heggie (Barnsley, 13/12/2013). The judge ruled that the amount charged by ParkingEye was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss as the loss for a four minute overstay was negligible.


3JD03769 ParkingEye v Baddeley (Birmingham 11/02/2014) District Judge Bull. The judge found that the defendant's calculation of ParkingEye’s pre-estimate of loss of around £5 was persuasive. As ParkingEye could not explain how their alternate calculation of £53 was arrived at, he accepted the defendant's calculations. The
transcript is not yet available.

The Office of fair Trading agreed with this, pointing out that all costs must be directly attributable to the breach, that day to day running costs could not be included and that the charge cannot be used to create a loss where none exists (Appendix A).


Appendix B contains the minutes of the British Parking Association where parking charge levels were decided, showing that there was no consideration whatsoever
given to pre-estimate of loss, and that at least one factor was to set the charges the same as council penalties. The minutes also show there is no financial basis for the 40% discount but that it is needed to ‘prevent frivolous appeals. Any charge set to deter is a penalty. A charge set to the level of a penalty is a penalty.




Conclusion


I deny that I am liable to the Claimant for the sums claimed, or any amount at all. I invite the Court to strike out the claim as being without merit, and with no realistic
prospect of success.All evidence and transcripts referred to will be provided at least 14 days before any hearing date.







Appendix a is D and appendix b is O from http://www.parking-prankster.com/sample-defence.html

M1

[martox]

Re: Hello Everyone - parking charge notice & northampton county court

Thanks M1 that looks really good - how on earth did you know I'm a brain surgeon :tinysmile_twink_t2:.

As I'm dealing with CCMCC and it appears everything has to be paper based and sent in the post I'll copy your email into a word doc and send that off attached to the Form N9B that I received with the original Claim before I go away, just in case. Should I print off the 2 appendices and send those as well or just leave that as "evidence & transcripts" that will be provided prior to any hearing date - as per the Conclusion?

Also should I have received any formal notice from CCMCC that my acknowledgement of service has been received thereby giving me the extra 14 days to file this defence ? I sent it in the post to Salford on 18th July.

Thank you so much for all your guidance so far.

[mystery1]

Re: Hello Everyone - parking charge notice & northampton county court

No exhibits until the court orders it.

Probably but the courts areusually behind. Give them a call. Ask if you can email at the same time to save on postage :okay: #scottish

M1

[ostell]

Re: Hello Everyone - parking charge notice & northampton county court

To really upset CEL could you ask them to provide proof of the calibration of the cameras used for entrance and exit if different cameras are used?

[Johnboy007]

Re: Hello Everyone - parking charge notice & northampton county court

The OFT have stated, that any penalty/charge imposed, must reflect on the actual loss incurred.
Unless they can prove loss to that extent, then they have no chance of getting it.
I had similar problems with Parkingeye, overstaying my visit to Aldi by 12 mins.
I just asked them to submit proof that Aldi had suffered a loss during the 12 mins, and to the extent of the charge they was claiming.
Got a letter back saying they would on this occasion, as a gesture of goodwillmsl:cancel the charge.

[martox]

Re: Hello Everyone - parking charge notice & northampton county court

A big thank you to Mystery 1 for your support/help/guidance over this.

Having diligently filed my defence I have today received correspondence from CEL stating that they have received total payment of £165 by cheque (presumably the one sent by the Co-op) and that proceedings have been discontinued and they have informed the Courts.

A satisfactory outcome for me but a shame it won't be subject to the scrutiny of the court which would've produced the same result. I hope the chap in the parallel thread has received notification of discontinuation from CEL too.

Cheers,
Martox.
PS I don't suppose CEL will bother responding to my query regarding the statement of truth and potential contempt of court now...............................

[MissFM]

Re: Hello Everyone - parking charge notice & northampton county court

Thanks M1 that looks really good - how on earth did you know I'm a brain surgeon :tinysmile_twink_t2:.

arty:@martox :high5: