Tweet
Preliminary matters
i. The Claimant has failed to substantiate their claim by
reference to a contract. Their Particulars of Claim refer only to
a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). PCNs have no statutory definition.
ii. They and their legal representatives, despite being asked
multiple times to do so, failed to cite any case law that would
support their claim.
iii. In Parking Eye v. Cargius (Wrexham A0JD1405 2014), the judge
found that Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) raised in a paid for car
park such as the one at issue are penalties and therefore
unenforceable.
iv. The Claimant was offered without admission of liability a sum
that more than adequately compensated them for any loss they may
have incurred.
v. I believe the Claimant, in common with much of the Parking
Enforcement industry, is an abusive litigant who files claims with
the sole intention of intimidating defendants into paying.
The Claim
I am defending the claim on the following grounds.
1) No contract existed between me and UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd
once my paid for ticket lapsed.
2) Not withstanding 1), the PCN is a penalty as found in iii.
above.
3) If a contract did exist it did not clearly define my liability
for the PCN.
4) The Claimant's claim includes substantial unjustified costs
with no genuine estimate of how these costs are calculated.
5) The Claimant has failed to provide evidence to support their
claim in a timely manner.
1) No contract existed between me and UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd
once my paid for ticket lapsed.
The image provided to me by the Claimant for the signage in the
car park states 'No unauthorised parking' and Parking is
restricted to vehicles displaying a valid pay & display ticket
only. These are clear prohibitions forbidding me from parking
there without a valid ticket, I was therefore trespassing for
which the Claimant is not seeking redress. The Claimant's debt
collectors/legal advisors believe that 'The only right which you
have to enter the land in question are on the Terms and Conditions
which apply. The signage at the car park is prominent and the
Terms and Conditions are clearly displayed. It is unnecessary to
apply an analysis of offer, acceptance and consideration quite
simply because the contract was formed on mutual promises. By
parking your vehicle in the car park you have entered into a
unilateral contract with Our Client.', but it is those self-same
Terms and Conditions, which are the terms of the contract written
by the Claimant which can easily be interpreted as meaning the
contract ended when I was no longer permitted to be parking in the
car park.
2) Not withstanding 1), the PCN is a penalty as found in iii.
above.
In the findings of Parking Evy v. Cargius the judge wrote ‘It
therefore appears in my judgement that ParkingEye accept that
there is no real loss to them by motorists overstaying, provided
that they pay for further parking time at the advertised rate
before they leave the car park. ‘ I made such an offer to the
UKPPO representative who raised the PCN on the night and I sent a
cheque for £10.00 to UKPPO Ltd as offer without admission of
liability on receipt of their first chasing letter that they
rejected out of hand.
The judge also wrote ‘..,the charge in this case of £100.00 is
likely on the balance of probabilities to far exceed the actual
loss to the Claimant. Furthermore, the wording on the signage
'Failure to comply with this will result in a parking charge of
£100.00' is in my view intended to be a deterrent to motorists
from either underpaying or not paying at all. ...the subsequent
charge of £100.00 is in my judgement totally disproportionate to
the level of ParkingEye's loss. It is in my judgement a penalty
and therefore unenforceable in this particular case.’ I have
previously cited this clearly relevant case to the Claimant and
they have made no effort to contradict its findings, yet they have
pursued this case.
3) If a contract did exist it did not clearly define my liability
for the PCN. The signage says, ‘Failure to comply with the terms
and conditions will result in a £100 parking charge notice being
issued’. What is a Parking Charge Notice? How does it create a
liability? For whom does it create a liability? None of this is
defined in the signage. How is this more enforceable than the
£100.00 TWN I threatened the Claimant's legal advisor in
correspondence?
4) The Claimant's claim includes substantial unjustified costs
with no estimate of how these costs are calculated.
The Claimant's claim includes ‘£60.00 contractual costs pursuant
to PCN Terms and Conditions’. There is no such thing as PCN Terms
and Conditions. The Claimant's legal advisor provided an image of
the signage in correspondence. This is the only evidence of a
contract that has been provided to me prior to the launching of
these proceedings and it contains no mention of these costs.
5) The Claimant has failed to provide evidence to support their
claim in a timely manner.
In my letter to the Claimant of 20/02/2018 that included my offer
of £10.00 to settle this matter, I requested that if UKPPO Ltd
were to reject the offer, then they should provide a number of
documents to justify their implied claim that a contract existed
and that they were entitled to enter into a contract for parking
on the land in question. They failed to provide any of them.
i. The Claimant has failed to substantiate their claim by
reference to a contract. Their Particulars of Claim refer only to
a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). PCNs have no statutory definition.
ii. They and their legal representatives, despite being asked
multiple times to do so, failed to cite any case law that would
support their claim.
iii. In Parking Eye v. Cargius (Wrexham A0JD1405 2014), the judge
found that Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) raised in a paid for car
park such as the one at issue are penalties and therefore
unenforceable.
iv. The Claimant was offered without admission of liability a sum
that more than adequately compensated them for any loss they may
have incurred.
v. I believe the Claimant, in common with much of the Parking
Enforcement industry, is an abusive litigant who files claims with
the sole intention of intimidating defendants into paying.
The Claim
I am defending the claim on the following grounds.
1) No contract existed between me and UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd
once my paid for ticket lapsed.
2) Not withstanding 1), the PCN is a penalty as found in iii.
above.
3) If a contract did exist it did not clearly define my liability
for the PCN.
4) The Claimant's claim includes substantial unjustified costs
with no genuine estimate of how these costs are calculated.
5) The Claimant has failed to provide evidence to support their
claim in a timely manner.
1) No contract existed between me and UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd
once my paid for ticket lapsed.
The image provided to me by the Claimant for the signage in the
car park states 'No unauthorised parking' and Parking is
restricted to vehicles displaying a valid pay & display ticket
only. These are clear prohibitions forbidding me from parking
there without a valid ticket, I was therefore trespassing for
which the Claimant is not seeking redress. The Claimant's debt
collectors/legal advisors believe that 'The only right which you
have to enter the land in question are on the Terms and Conditions
which apply. The signage at the car park is prominent and the
Terms and Conditions are clearly displayed. It is unnecessary to
apply an analysis of offer, acceptance and consideration quite
simply because the contract was formed on mutual promises. By
parking your vehicle in the car park you have entered into a
unilateral contract with Our Client.', but it is those self-same
Terms and Conditions, which are the terms of the contract written
by the Claimant which can easily be interpreted as meaning the
contract ended when I was no longer permitted to be parking in the
car park.
2) Not withstanding 1), the PCN is a penalty as found in iii.
above.
In the findings of Parking Evy v. Cargius the judge wrote ‘It
therefore appears in my judgement that ParkingEye accept that
there is no real loss to them by motorists overstaying, provided
that they pay for further parking time at the advertised rate
before they leave the car park. ‘ I made such an offer to the
UKPPO representative who raised the PCN on the night and I sent a
cheque for £10.00 to UKPPO Ltd as offer without admission of
liability on receipt of their first chasing letter that they
rejected out of hand.
The judge also wrote ‘..,the charge in this case of £100.00 is
likely on the balance of probabilities to far exceed the actual
loss to the Claimant. Furthermore, the wording on the signage
'Failure to comply with this will result in a parking charge of
£100.00' is in my view intended to be a deterrent to motorists
from either underpaying or not paying at all. ...the subsequent
charge of £100.00 is in my judgement totally disproportionate to
the level of ParkingEye's loss. It is in my judgement a penalty
and therefore unenforceable in this particular case.’ I have
previously cited this clearly relevant case to the Claimant and
they have made no effort to contradict its findings, yet they have
pursued this case.
3) If a contract did exist it did not clearly define my liability
for the PCN. The signage says, ‘Failure to comply with the terms
and conditions will result in a £100 parking charge notice being
issued’. What is a Parking Charge Notice? How does it create a
liability? For whom does it create a liability? None of this is
defined in the signage. How is this more enforceable than the
£100.00 TWN I threatened the Claimant's legal advisor in
correspondence?
4) The Claimant's claim includes substantial unjustified costs
with no estimate of how these costs are calculated.
The Claimant's claim includes ‘£60.00 contractual costs pursuant
to PCN Terms and Conditions’. There is no such thing as PCN Terms
and Conditions. The Claimant's legal advisor provided an image of
the signage in correspondence. This is the only evidence of a
contract that has been provided to me prior to the launching of
these proceedings and it contains no mention of these costs.
5) The Claimant has failed to provide evidence to support their
claim in a timely manner.
In my letter to the Claimant of 20/02/2018 that included my offer
of £10.00 to settle this matter, I requested that if UKPPO Ltd
were to reject the offer, then they should provide a number of
documents to justify their implied claim that a contract existed
and that they were entitled to enter into a contract for parking
on the land in question. They failed to provide any of them.
