Urgent Advice Needed: Unexpected Final Reminder for £100 PCN from ParkMaven

[Rav123]

So please post up (probably best via a hosting site) what they have sent you.
Your defence has to be filed by tomorrow so may be working into the night!

I have now uploaded all the documents they sent, except for the 'Notice to Keeper' which I had previously uploaded and is available in the earlier (above).

The small print in the 'T&C's document was difficult to read, even in the printed version. For convenience, I have referenced it below:

"This car park (the Property) is private property. Parking is operated and monitored by ParkMaven Ltd (the Operator) subject to the terms and conditions within this notice and any other terms posted in the Property or on the Operator's website (the Parking Contract). By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within the Property, you enter into a contract with the Operator and agree to comply with the Parking Contract. You are authorised to park only if you follow the Parking Contract. Please note that payment of any specified fees, if any, is also a requirement. If you fail to comply with the Parking Contract you accept liability to pay the fee for unauthorised parking (the Parking Charge). Parking Charges incurred may in the first instance be notified to the Driver by the Operator issuing a written Parking Charge and placing it on the vehicle or by sending it by post or electronically to the registered Keeper, by requesting this keeper details from the DVLA. Personal data may also be shared with BPA POPLA collection agents or solicitors for this purpose. A reduction of at least 40% of the Parking charge will be available for a period of 14 days, failure to pay the Parking Charge within this period will result in the full amount becoming payable. Where Parking Charges remain unpaid beyond 28 days, additional charges in respect of further recovery action may apply. The Operator excludes all liability, including but not limited to any damage to vehicles, save that there shall be no limitation on the Operator’s liability for death or personal injury caused by the Owner's negligence. Items left in vehicles are left at the owner's risk.

The Operator processes the personal data of the owner of the vehicle entering into the Property and any other driver or users of the vehicle in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The Premises are monitored by cameras. For information on how the Operator processes your personal data, please see our data protection information statement which is available on the Operator's website at www.parkmaven.com, by writing to the address below or e-mail support@parkmaven.com. The Operator, ParkMaven Ltd is a company registered in England under Company Number 10898986 whose registered office is at Kermp House 160, City Road, London, EC1V 2NX."



Thank you again for your support in this matter. Your guidance is greatly appreciated as we continue to navigate through this process.

[Rav123]

Hi DES8, just to clarify if I need to submit my defence by tonight at 11:59 PM, or do I have until tomorrow night at the same time?

Issue date was 11/04

[des8]

Those pictures appear cropped.... is that how they were received.
Uploading to a hosting site and posting the link here makes for easier reading!
What was the location?

IMO those signs aren't capable of forming a contract as there doesn't seem to be an offer to park in return for payment, but just a list of what not to do1 Perhaps I'm missing something.

You have until 4.30p.m. tomorrow to file your defence on basis:
claim issued 11/04
deemed date of service 16/04
defence due 14/05

You could use the following (suitably amended & renumbered) to bolster your defence as I see they are charging "damages" on the POC, and "additional charges" on their signs.

14) The Defendant notes the PoC states the claimant is entitled to damages, but these are unspecified.
15) The signage in the car park only refers to unspecified additional charges.
16) If the Defendant is being sued as Keeper the Claimant is only entitled to recover the Parking charge as Schedule 4 condition 4(5) of POFA 2012 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. Therefore, any associated costs in incurred by the Claimant in connection with the PCN(s) are not recoverable.
17) Alternatively, the Defendant asserts the “additional charges” term on the parking sign is contrary to the requirement of good faith and causes a significant imbalance under the contract to the detriment of the Defendant.
18) Section 68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. (CRA 2015) requires that every term of a consumer contract must be transparent and expressed in a plain and intelligible language.
19) The Defendant contends that the term referring to the charges on the signage was neither transparent nor intelligible in that it only refers to unspecified additional charges.
20) It fails to explain what charges the claimant seeks to recover, and is also contrary to CRA2015 Schedule2 (10 & 14).
21) Consequently, the term is unfair and is not binding on the Defendant pursuant to section 62 of the CRA2015)
22) 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).
23) 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))

[Rav123]

Those pictures appear cropped.... is that how they were received.
Uploading to a hosting site and posting the link here makes for easier reading!
What was the location?

IMO those signs aren't capable of forming a contract as there doesn't seem to be an offer to park in return for payment, but just a list of what not to do1 Perhaps I'm missing something.

You have until 4.30p.m. tomorrow to file your defence on basis:
claim issued 11/04
deemed date of service 16/04
defence due 14/05

You could use the following (suitably amended & renumbered) to bolster your defence as I see they are charging "damages" on the POC, and "additional charges" on their signs.

14) The Defendant notes the PoC states the claimant is entitled to damages, but these are unspecified.
15) The signage in the car park only refers to unspecified additional charges.
16) If the Defendant is being sued as Keeper the Claimant is only entitled to recover the Parking charge as Schedule 4 condition 4(5) of POFA 2012 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. Therefore, any associated costs in incurred by the Claimant in connection with the PCN(s) are not recoverable.
17) Alternatively, the Defendant asserts the “additional charges” term on the parking sign is contrary to the requirement of good faith and causes a significant imbalance under the contract to the detriment of the Defendant.
18) Section 68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. (CRA 2015) requires that every term of a consumer contract must be transparent and expressed in a plain and intelligible language.
19) The Defendant contends that the term referring to the charges on the signage was neither transparent nor intelligible in that it only refers to unspecified additional charges.
20) It fails to explain what charges the claimant seeks to recover, and is also contrary to CRA2015 Schedule2 (10 & 14).
21) Consequently, the term is unfair and is not binding on the Defendant pursuant to section 62 of the CRA2015)
22) 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).
23) 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))

The pictures were received as shown, and the location id is 11140, I did try to upload them via a hosting site, but the post got flagged as spam. I will try again.

Thanks, I will add the points you mentioned onto the previous draft.

[Rav123]

The pictures were received as shown, and the location id is 11140, I did try to upload them via a hosting site, but the post got flagged as spam. I will try again.

Thanks, I will add the points you mentioned onto the previous draft.

https://www.yourparkingspace.co.uk/l...how/1731522508

[Rav123]

https://www.yourparkingspace.co.uk/l...how/1731522508

Link to docs: https://postimg.cc/gallery/kXY0gx4

[des8]

So besides adding in the points raised in post 18 you could just delete paras 5 & 6 of your defence re CPR31.14
Then file &; serve your defence.
My request for location details was so I could look on Google Earth .... id number not known to google perhaps I should have asked for address!

[Rav123]

So besides adding in the points raised in post 18 you could just delete paras 5 & 6 of your defence re CPR31.14
Then file &; serve your defence.
My request for location details was so I could look on Google Earth .... id number not known to google perhaps I should have asked for address!

Thank you so much for preparing this defense that I will submit today before 4:30pm. I have added the latest editions and removed the paras 5 & 6 regarding CPR31.14.

I did include the car park address and a link previously, but it seems the post was removed instantly. This is the second time a post has been removed, so I might be doing something wrong. To provide further information, I included the ID and then a link to the parking space in post number 20, which contains the full location details of the parking car park....

[des8]

The site has a spam filter that sometimes seems a little sensitive, so that is probably why your post was auto deleted.

I missed post 20 ... must pay more attention

[Rav123]

The site has a spam filter that sometimes seems a little sensitive, so that is probably why your post was auto deleted.

I missed post 20 ... must pay more attention

Ok, thanks for the info, that makes sense. I'll have to try to avoid getting picked up by this detection. Anyways, thank you so much for the support so far. I've created the final defence. If you could just give it a quick scan when you have time and let me know if it's suitable, I'll get it submitted this morning. Thanks again for your help!

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant received the claim xxxxx from Parkhaven on xxxxx
2. Each and every allegation in the Claimant's statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.
3. The Defendant avers that the Claimant's statement of case fails to give adequate information to enable the Defendant to properly assess their position with regards to the claim. The Claimant has failed to properly plead its case in accordance with CPR 16.4(1)(a): (i) The claim is for unpaid parking and damages and refers to Parking Charge Notices (PCNs). It is unclear about the number of PCNs the Claimant is seeking to claim against the Defendant, together with an itemisation list of charges and damages related to those PCNs. (ii) Whether the PCNs (if more than one) were issued for the same breach of parking conditions at the same location or if the PCNs relate to different locations or both. (iii) The Particulars of Claim allege that the Defendant is liable as the driver but fails to provide any reasons on which the Claimant relies to prove such liability.
4. The Defendant notes the PoC states the claimant is entitled to damages, but these are unspecified.
5. The Claimant's Particulars of Claim are unclear on whether the Defendant was the driver or was the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident.
6. The Defendant is surprised by the poor drafting of the particulars given that the Claimant is represented professionally by a firm of solicitors. The lack of compliance with CPR 16.4(1)(a) to formulate proper particulars cannot be excused. Accordingly, the court is invited to consider its general case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.1 to: (i) Make an order that unless the Claimant (a) files and re-serves amended Particulars of Claim compliant with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and (b) provides the necessary documentation to enable the Defendant to fully plead their case within 14 days of said order, then the claim shall be struck out and judgment entered in favour of the Defendant. (ii) If the Claimant complies with such an order, the Defendant will then be in a position to amend their defence and asks that the Claimant bears the costs of the amendment. (iii) Alternatively, if the court considers it appropriate, strike out the claim in whole or in part on the basis that the claim discloses no reasonable grounds for a cause of action. (iv) Exercise any other case management powers the court sees fit.
7. Without prejudice to the foregoing paragraphs, the Defendant intends to respond to the allegations raised in the Particulars of Claim as best they can.

Defendant’s Liability as the Driver of the Vehicle

1. This claim appears to be for a parking charge following a breach of contract.
2. In the Particulars of Claim, the Claimant pursues the Defendant as the driver, assuming the Claimant has actual and/or constructive knowledge of the driver’s identity. However, the Claimant has failed to produce any supporting evidence that demonstrates the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle when the alleged contravention(s) took place. The Defendant contends that the Claimant’s allegations are nothing more than a fishing expedition and the Claimant has no knowledge of the driver.
3. The Claimant asserts the reason the PCN was issued was "no valid parking session" but has failed to provide an explanation of what this means.

Liability as Registered Keeper of the Vehicle

1. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of Vehicle xxxxx, registration no. xxxxx
2. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to recover the Parking Charge from the Defendant as registered keeper of the vehicle. The Defendant repeats paragraphs 5 to 9 (inclusive) of this Defence.
3. Further and alternatively, the Defendant contends that the Claimant has failed to comply with the mandatory conditions under POFA 2012 for the registered keeper to be held liable for the Parking Charge: (i) Contrary to condition 5(1)(a) of POFA 2012, the Claimant has failed to provide evidence that it has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the Parking Charge. (ii) Contrary to condition 5(1)(b), the Claimant claims to know 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. (iii) If the Defendant is being sued as Keeper, the Claimant is only entitled to recover the parking charge as Schedule 4, condition 4(5) of POFA 2012 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. Therefore, any associated costs incurred by the Claimant in connection with the PCN(s) are not recoverable.
4. The signage in the car park only refers to unspecified additional charges.
5. Alternatively, the Defendant asserts the "additional charges" term on the parking sign is contrary to the requirement of good faith and causes a significant imbalance under the contract to the detriment of the Defendant.
6. Section 68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015) requires that every term of a consumer contract must be transparent and expressed in plain and intelligible language.
7. The Defendant contends that the term referring to the charges on the signage was neither transparent nor intelligible in that it only refers to unspecified additional charges.
8. It fails to explain what charges the claimant seeks to recover and is also contrary to CRA 2015 Schedule 2 (10 & 14).
9. Consequently, the term is unfair and is not binding on the Defendant pursuant to section 62 of the CRA 2015.
10. In Parking Eye vs Beavis ([2015] UKSC 67. Case ID. UKSC 2015/0116), the Supreme Court 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).
11. 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 (CPR 3.4 (2) (b)).

Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

[des8]

In section "Liability as the registered keeper" delete from para 2 ". The Defendant repeats paragraphs 5 to 9 (inclusive) of this Defence." as there are no such paragraphs. (this was a template for you to check and amend).
Para 3 needs to be better presented. It is just a wall of text. Suggest:

Further and alternatively, the Defendant contends that the Claimant has failed to comply with the mandatory conditions under POFA 2012 for the registered keeper to be held liable for the Parking Charge:
(i) Contrary to condition 5(1)(a) of POFA 2012, the Claimant has failed to provide evidence that it has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the Parking Charge.
(ii) Contrary to condition 5(1)(b), the Claimant claims to know 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.
(iii) If the Defendant is being sued as Keeper, the Claimant is only entitled to recover the parking charge as Schedule 4, condition 4(5) of POFA 2012 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. Therefore, any associated costs incurred by the Claimant in connection with the PCN(s) are not recoverable.

The final paras 4 to 11 inclusive should be numbered 8 to 15 as they do not just refer to liability as Registered keeper and inserted before "Defenders Liability as Driver"

[Rav123]

In section "Liability as the registered keeper" delete from para 2 ". The Defendant repeats paragraphs 5 to 9 (inclusive) of this Defence." as there are no such paragraphs. (this was a template for you to check and amend).
Para 3 needs to be better presented. It is just a wall of text. Suggest:

Further and alternatively, the Defendant contends that the Claimant has failed to comply with the mandatory conditions under POFA 2012 for the registered keeper to be held liable for the Parking Charge:
(i) Contrary to condition 5(1)(a) of POFA 2012, the Claimant has failed to provide evidence that it has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the Parking Charge.
(ii) Contrary to condition 5(1)(b), the Claimant claims to know 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.
(iii) If the Defendant is being sued as Keeper, the Claimant is only entitled to recover the parking charge as Schedule 4, condition 4(5) of POFA 2012 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. Therefore, any associated costs incurred by the Claimant in connection with the PCN(s) are not recoverable.

The final paras 4 to 11 inclusive should be numbered 8 to 15 as they do not just refer to liability as Registered keeper and inserted before "Defenders Liability as Driver"

I have successfully submitted my defense via Money Claim Online. It was submitted at 11:46 a.m., so it should be processed today, meeting the deadline.

I made sure to incorporate your suggestions and rectify the defense as advised. Thank you for your invaluable support and guidance throughout this process. Your advice and insights have been incredibly helpful, and I truly appreciate the time and effort you have invested in assisting me.

I will keep you updated with any new developments and the outcome of the case. Fingers crossed for a positive result!

Thanks again for everything.

[Rav123]

I have successfully submitted my defense via Money Claim Online. It was submitted at 11:46 a.m., so it should be processed today, meeting the deadline.

I made sure to incorporate your suggestions and rectify the defense as advised. Thank you for your invaluable support and guidance throughout this process. Your advice and insights have been incredibly helpful, and I truly appreciate the time and effort you have invested in assisting me.

I will keep you updated with any new developments and the outcome of the case. Fingers crossed for a positive result!

Thanks again for everything.

I received this afternoon an email from DCB Legal (attached), Any thoughts on this?

[des8]

No! just standard DCB Legal hoping you will settle outside court as it saves them money