Tweet
I have been fighting a PCN from Parking Met Services. In my original appeal to them I stated clearly that unless they accept my appeal I will pursue them for costs should my appeal succeed in the future. I advised them on what basis my costs would be incurred. They chose to ignore this and continue to request that I pay the PCN. I therefore proceeded to fight the claim, eventually going to POPLA. Met Parking did not put up a defense. As a consequence POPLA upheld my appeal. Following this I was determined to make a stance against these bullies. I had given them written warning that I would pursue them for costs. I have now begun this process. I have issued them with an invoice for my expenses. They have refused to pay. Consequently I have submitted a claim in the small claims court for £289 (including the small claims court fee). They have cited a defense as follows:
Defence
We request the court to strike out this claim as the claimant has
disclosed no cause of action recognised in the law of England and
Wales.
The background summary to the case is that on 2 July 2014 the
vehicle registered to Mr XXX was recorded as breaching the
terms and conditions of parking at McDonald’s, Clews Road,
Redditch by remaining in the car park for 111 minutes. Our clients
have retained us to enforce adherence to the terms and conditions
of parking at this location, the principal condition of parking
being that vehicles are only permitted to stay in the car park for
a maximum of 90 minutes. The reason for this maximum stay is to
ensure the adequacy of parking spaces for all McDonald’s
customers. This principal term is clearly stated on 11 signs
prominently displayed at the entrance to and around the car park,
which represents 1 sign for approximately each 5 parking spaces.
Mr XXX does not deny that he exceeded this maximum permitted
stay and has subsequently proffered mitigating circumstances to
support his appeal for this breach.
A charge notice was issued to Mr XXX who appealed against the
charge notice on the basis that he felt the notice to be
unenforceable, his appeal was rejected and he was offered the
opportunity to appeal to POPLA the independent appeals service. He
advised us that he was submitting his appeal to POPLA and would
invoice us for the time costs he incurred in submitting his
appeal. We advised him we would not pay the invoice.
As a result of POPLA not receiving a response from us they upheld
his appeal on the grounds that we provided no evidence and as a
result of their decision the charge notice was cancelled.
We note that Mr XXX has acknowledged that he remained in the
car park for the time stated and proffered mitigating
circumstances for exceeding the maximum permitted stay. The
principal basis of his appeal was his belief that charge notices
are unenforceable using frequently quoted arguments reproduced
from various internet websites.
With regard to the enforceability of the charge notice we believe
HHJ Moloney QC ruled in significant detail on the arguments of
enforceability in the recent cases Parking Eye Limited v Barry
Beavis and Martin Wardley in the County Court at Cambridge, claim
numbers 3JD05152 and 3JD05169. Without going into the detail of
the similarity of the cases to Mr XXX HHJ Moloney concluded
that in principal charge notices are enforceable.
Separate from the merits of the charge notice we contend that Mr
XXX has disclosed no cause of action recognised in the law of
England and Wales and there is no legal basis for his claim. This
contention is supported by the Judges’ findings in 2 similar
recent cases: Mr Dennis Moore v MET Parking Services Limited in
Colchester County Court, claim number 3QZ08291, where on 20
November 2013 District Judge Mitchell ordered M Moore’s claim to
be struck out as he had disclosed no cause of action, and Mr James
Wesley Stanton v MET Parking Services Limited, claim number
A1QZ9497 at the County Court at Warwick where on 14 May 2014
District Judge A S Jones ordered the claim to be dismissed
concluding that the claimant has no cause of action against the
defendant and awarded expenses to the defendant.
In light of the above we request the court to strike out this
claim. If in the alternative the Court feels that a hearing is
necessary we request the hearing to be held in London in order to
reduce the costs of defending this apparently baseless claim and
also request the Court to permit us to claim reimbursement of all
reasonable costs incurred in any successful defence of the claim.
Signed
I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true
David Marks
Director
16/10/2014
I would like advice as to whether I have a case or whether it would be folly to continue given the defense they will cite above.
Defence
We request the court to strike out this claim as the claimant has
disclosed no cause of action recognised in the law of England and
Wales.
The background summary to the case is that on 2 July 2014 the
vehicle registered to Mr XXX was recorded as breaching the
terms and conditions of parking at McDonald’s, Clews Road,
Redditch by remaining in the car park for 111 minutes. Our clients
have retained us to enforce adherence to the terms and conditions
of parking at this location, the principal condition of parking
being that vehicles are only permitted to stay in the car park for
a maximum of 90 minutes. The reason for this maximum stay is to
ensure the adequacy of parking spaces for all McDonald’s
customers. This principal term is clearly stated on 11 signs
prominently displayed at the entrance to and around the car park,
which represents 1 sign for approximately each 5 parking spaces.
Mr XXX does not deny that he exceeded this maximum permitted
stay and has subsequently proffered mitigating circumstances to
support his appeal for this breach.
A charge notice was issued to Mr XXX who appealed against the
charge notice on the basis that he felt the notice to be
unenforceable, his appeal was rejected and he was offered the
opportunity to appeal to POPLA the independent appeals service. He
advised us that he was submitting his appeal to POPLA and would
invoice us for the time costs he incurred in submitting his
appeal. We advised him we would not pay the invoice.
As a result of POPLA not receiving a response from us they upheld
his appeal on the grounds that we provided no evidence and as a
result of their decision the charge notice was cancelled.
We note that Mr XXX has acknowledged that he remained in the
car park for the time stated and proffered mitigating
circumstances for exceeding the maximum permitted stay. The
principal basis of his appeal was his belief that charge notices
are unenforceable using frequently quoted arguments reproduced
from various internet websites.
With regard to the enforceability of the charge notice we believe
HHJ Moloney QC ruled in significant detail on the arguments of
enforceability in the recent cases Parking Eye Limited v Barry
Beavis and Martin Wardley in the County Court at Cambridge, claim
numbers 3JD05152 and 3JD05169. Without going into the detail of
the similarity of the cases to Mr XXX HHJ Moloney concluded
that in principal charge notices are enforceable.
Separate from the merits of the charge notice we contend that Mr
XXX has disclosed no cause of action recognised in the law of
England and Wales and there is no legal basis for his claim. This
contention is supported by the Judges’ findings in 2 similar
recent cases: Mr Dennis Moore v MET Parking Services Limited in
Colchester County Court, claim number 3QZ08291, where on 20
November 2013 District Judge Mitchell ordered M Moore’s claim to
be struck out as he had disclosed no cause of action, and Mr James
Wesley Stanton v MET Parking Services Limited, claim number
A1QZ9497 at the County Court at Warwick where on 14 May 2014
District Judge A S Jones ordered the claim to be dismissed
concluding that the claimant has no cause of action against the
defendant and awarded expenses to the defendant.
In light of the above we request the court to strike out this
claim. If in the alternative the Court feels that a hearing is
necessary we request the hearing to be held in London in order to
reduce the costs of defending this apparently baseless claim and
also request the Court to permit us to claim reimbursement of all
reasonable costs incurred in any successful defence of the claim.
Signed
I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true
David Marks
Director
16/10/2014
I would like advice as to whether I have a case or whether it would be folly to continue given the defense they will cite above.
