BCDL PCN Court Claim

[Andy77]

Acknowledged it as soon as it was received. Would the fact that the club have confirmed they've requested the tickets to be cancelled factor into any defence?

[des8]

It will be mentioned

[Andy77]

Thank you so much.

[Andy77]

Does the defence have to be 28 days from the issue date (5th Aug)?

[des8]

Here's a draft defence for you to use, adapt or discard as you wish
The bits in red you will need to complete
I'm not sure if Para 12 is correct about the signage. I just wonder if there were other signs present which contained more terms and conditions.
You might want to check it out, but it is a minor point really.
The important bit is based around paras 4, 5 &6 ... if this reaches court that is the bit to ram home (if you are lucky you will be able to recover your costs in defending this claim)

You will need to send this to the court as PDF attached to an email
Put "Smart Parking Ltd v your name .. Claim number" in the subject line

Just for the record, I am not legally trained and this draft is solely based on the approach I would use.

Claim No:

In the County Court Centre Claim No.

Between

Smart Parking Limited (Claimant)

and

Mr ………. (Defendant)

DEFENCE


1.The Defendant received the claim xxx from Smart Parking Ltd on dd/mm/yy
2.Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence
3.It seems this claim is for two breaches of an alleged contract to park at xxxx
4 The Defendant avers there was no intention to form a contract
5 The Defendant admits to being the keeper and the driver of the vehicle at those times
6The Defendant denies the Claimant is entitled to the sums claimed or any relief at all
INTRODUCTION

1. This claim has been issued against the Defendant in connection with the Defendant’s refusal to pay two private parking charges which the Claimant alleges that the is liable to pay as either the driver or as the keeper of vehicle registration number XXXXX. For the reasons set out in this Defence, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the sums claimed or any relief at all.

CLAIMANT'S NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES

1. By way of general comment, it should be noted that whilst the Defendant intends to respond to the issues raised by the Claimant in the Particulars of Claim, he cannot do so with complete accuracy because the Claimant has not pleaded its case in accordance with CPR 16.4(1)(a), and has not responded to a CPR31.14 request for disclosure of documents. There is not a concise statement of the facts which discloses a cause of action, rather the Claimant has merely provided a series of generalised statements which in turn makes it difficult for the Defendant to respond as he does not know or understand the basis of the Claimant's case.

RELEVANT FACTS

1. On the dates in question, the driver entered the car park at Trentham Golf Club, Stoke -on-Trent
2. The on-site signage states "For Patrons of Trentham Golf Club Only".
3. The signage continues that visitors [to the club] report to reception to validate registration mark,
4 There is no offer for parking other than as a Patron or a visitor to the club.
5. However the claim is for breach of contract (unauthorised parking) but fails to explain how one can contract to do what is unauthorised. If unauthorised there cannot have been an offer to contract to park
6 Any person parking but who is not a patron nor a visitor is a trespasser. It is not possible to contract to do something which is forbidden. No breach of contract has occurred and the claim must fail.
7.Despite, a CPR31.14 request dated dd/mm by the Defendant asking the Claimant to provide documents on which the Claimant intends to rely, the claimant has failed to respond.
8.In the absence of evidence establishing that the Claimant has authority to manage and enforce the car park by way of issuing parking charge notices pursuant to condition 5(1)(a) of POFA 2012, it is the Defendant’s contention – and the court is invited to make an inference that – the Claimant has no lawful basis to pursue the Defendant.
9.If (which the Defendant denies), the Defendant is found to be liable for the Parking Charges, the Defendant will say that the Parking Charges are not enforceable on the basis that there was not adequate notice of the Parking Charge given to the Defendant pursuant to Paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012. Paragraph 3(b) defines “adequate notice” as the display of one or more notices which are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land.
10.The signage at the car park was not sufficient to give the driver adequate notice of the parking charge because signs were too high and of too small a font to be read easily from his vehicle.
11.The claim form claims £455.16, but gives no breakdown of how that figure is calculated
12.There is no mention on the signs of additional costs or similar and it is trite law that one cannot incorporate terms and conditions after the fact, without giving reasonable notice beforehand.
13. 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).
14 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))
15. As the Claimant is also claiming from the Defendant as Keeper, the Defendant draws attention to paragraph 4(5) of POFA which 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. The total of the unpaid parking charges specified in the notices is £200.
16.It follows that any liability owed by the keeper to the Claimant is several to the driver’s liability and is limited to an amount that does not exceed the unpaid parking charges. The Claimant’s pursuit of these additional costs is not recoverable and amounts to an abuse of process.
17. additionally the Defendant avers as he was neither a patron nor Visitor to Trentham Golf Club, but solely present to pick up a member of staff at the end of their shift there was no intention to park, hence no contract.
18, The Defendant has confirmation in writing that the Claimant has been instructed by their principals to cancel the Parking Charges, and hence no longer has authority to pursue recovery through the Courts
CONCLUSION
By reason of the matters as set out in this Defence, the Claimant is not entitled to the sums claimed or any relief at all.
As stated in paragraph 5 the Claimant is pursuing a claim for breach of a contract which cannot exist. This is totally unreasonable seeing the Claimant is represented by a firm of solicitors.
Accordingly the Defendant requests the court exercises its discretion and awards the Defendant his costs as permitted by CPR27.14(g)
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]

Does the defence have to be 28 days from the issue date (5th Aug)?

28days +5 for post from date of issue of claim form

[Andy77]

Here's a draft defence for you to use, adapt or discard as you wish
The bits in red you will need to complete
I'm not sure if Para 12 is correct about the signage. I just wonder if there were other signs present which contained more terms and conditions.
You might want to check it out, but it is a minor point really.
The important bit is based around paras 4, 5 &6 ... if this reaches court that is the bit to ram home (if you are lucky you will be able to recover your costs in defending this claim)

You will need to send this to the court as PDF attached to an email
Put "Smart Parking Ltd v your name .. Claim number" in the subject line

Just for the record, I am not legally trained and this draft is solely based on the approach I would use.

Claim No:

In the County Court Centre Claim No.

Between

Smart Parking Limited (Claimant)

and

Mr ………. (Defendant)

DEFENCE


1.The Defendant received the claim xxx from Smart Parking Ltd on dd/mm/yy
2.Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence
3.It seems this claim is for two breaches of an alleged contract to park at xxxx
4 The Defendant avers there was no intention to form a contract
5 The Defendant admits to being the keeper and the driver of the vehicle at those times
6The Defendant denies the Claimant is entitled to the sums claimed or any relief at all
INTRODUCTION

1. This claim has been issued against the Defendant in connection with the Defendant’s refusal to pay two private parking charges which the Claimant alleges that the is liable to pay as either the driver or as the keeper of vehicle registration number XXXXX. For the reasons set out in this Defence, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the sums claimed or any relief at all.

CLAIMANT'S NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES

1. By way of general comment, it should be noted that whilst the Defendant intends to respond to the issues raised by the Claimant in the Particulars of Claim, he cannot do so with complete accuracy because the Claimant has not pleaded its case in accordance with CPR 16.4(1)(a), and has not responded to a CPR31.14 request for disclosure of documents. There is not a concise statement of the facts which discloses a cause of action, rather the Claimant has merely provided a series of generalised statements which in turn makes it difficult for the Defendant to respond as he does not know or understand the basis of the Claimant's case.

RELEVANT FACTS

1. On the dates in question, the driver entered the car park at Trentham Golf Club, Stoke -on-Trent
2. The on-site signage states "For Patrons of Trentham Golf Club Only".
3. The signage continues that visitors [to the club] report to reception to validate registration mark,
4 There is no offer for parking other than as a Patron or a visitor to the club.
5. However the claim is for breach of contract (unauthorised parking) but fails to explain how one can contract to do what is unauthorised. If unauthorised there cannot have been an offer to contract to park
6 Any person parking but who is not a patron nor a visitor is a trespasser. It is not possible to contract to do something which is forbidden. No breach of contract has occurred and the claim must fail.
7.Despite, a CPR31.14 request dated dd/mm by the Defendant asking the Claimant to provide documents on which the Claimant intends to rely, the claimant has failed to respond.
8.In the absence of evidence establishing that the Claimant has authority to manage and enforce the car park by way of issuing parking charge notices pursuant to condition 5(1)(a) of POFA 2012, it is the Defendant’s contention – and the court is invited to make an inference that – the Claimant has no lawful basis to pursue the Defendant.
9.If (which the Defendant denies), the Defendant is found to be liable for the Parking Charges, the Defendant will say that the Parking Charges are not enforceable on the basis that there was not adequate notice of the Parking Charge given to the Defendant pursuant to Paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012. Paragraph 3(b) defines “adequate notice” as the display of one or more notices which are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land.
10.The signage at the car park was not sufficient to give the driver adequate notice of the parking charge because signs were too high and of too small a font to be read easily from his vehicle.
11.The claim form claims £455.16, but gives no breakdown of how that figure is calculated
12.There is no mention on the signs of additional costs or similar and it is trite law that one cannot incorporate terms and conditions after the fact, without giving reasonable notice beforehand.
13. 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).
14 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))
15. As the Claimant is also claiming from the Defendant as Keeper, the Defendant draws attention to paragraph 4(5) of POFA which 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. The total of the unpaid parking charges specified in the notices is £200.
16.It follows that any liability owed by the keeper to the Claimant is several to the driver’s liability and is limited to an amount that does not exceed the unpaid parking charges. The Claimant’s pursuit of these additional costs is not recoverable and amounts to an abuse of process.
17. additionally the Defendant avers as he was neither a patron nor Visitor to Trentham Golf Club, but solely present to pick up a member of staff at the end of their shift there was no intention to park, hence no contract.
18, The Defendant has confirmation in writing that the Claimant has been instructed by their principals to cancel the Parking Charges, and hence no longer has authority to pursue recovery through the Courts
CONCLUSION
By reason of the matters as set out in this Defence, the Claimant is not entitled to the sums claimed or any relief at all.
As stated in paragraph 5 the Claimant is pursuing a claim for breach of a contract which cannot exist. This is totally unreasonable seeing the Claimant is represented by a firm of solicitors.
Accordingly the Defendant requests the court exercises its discretion and awards the Defendant his costs as permitted by CPR27.14(g)
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.

Thank you. Do I need to sign it at the bottom?

[Andy77]

Sent the defence over to this, which on the automated response said it could take ten days to reply.
Enquiries ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk
(Send emails here for Claim Response, N9A, N9B, Defence, MCOL response queries, N225a intention to proceed, Counterclaims, Replies to defence)

Had a look at the claim on mcol and at the moment it says on there - A bar has been put in place on this claim. You cannot respond to the claim at this time.

[des8]

That's OK and normal following the receipt of a defence
It prevents the claimant applying successfully for a default judgment

[Andy77]

Received a reply to my request for information which I sent to the address DCBL provided on the claim paperwork, saying they aren't dealing with recovering the balance, but their sister team DCB Legal are. They provided me with their telephone and email instead..

[des8]

So you sent to the wrong company
There are DCB Legal ltd and DCBL Ltd, each with exactly the same address. (and possibly even the same desks!)
One firm are bailiffs, the other solicitors.
Confusion is not uncommon.

So now send the CPR31.14 to DCB Legal.
It doesn't make any difference to your defence, so no worries