Tweet
Hey guys, thanks for having me. I have followed this site and a few others in an attempt to fight a parking ticket that I have little knowledge about (from 2014). I know for a fact that if the contravention had taken place, it would not be myself, the registered keeper that was driving but another person. I have sent an SAR to BW twice and once to PPS without any response. The defence needs to be filed with Northampton CC by Weds 17th. As such, I have prepared the following defence and would appreciate any feedback on it please:
BETWEEN:
1. It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However, the Claimant has no cause of action and has filed this claim without providing any information to the Defendant whatsoever. The defendant asserts that he was the registered keeper but was not the driver as he only drove infrequently due to his partner having just given birth to their daughter. Further to this matter, the defendant never used car parks as he would always park at the fire station in town where he works (on the rare occasions he actually had to go into town). As the defendant was not the driver, the registered keeper cannot say whether the driver did breach the terms at the car park.
1.1Neither the Defendant, nor any other possible drivers, recall any 'parking charge notice' (PCN) from the past, nor does the Defendant even know where the car park was, having only the vague Particulars of Claim (POC). Any contractual agreement - and thus any breach - is denied.
2. The POC alleges that the Defendant was 'the registered keeper and/or the driver' of the vehicle, thereby vaguely offering a menu of choices copied from BW Legal's latest batch of robo-claims issued in September 2018. The Claimant has and failed to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the POC do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.
2.1. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction and the Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.
2.2. The vague POC discloses nothing that can lead to a claim in law. The parking event was far too long ago to expect a registered keeper to recall the day or who was driving, and it is believed from the Defendant's research of similar cases, that this Claimant did not use compliant documents to hold a registered keeper liable anyway.
3. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 (the POFA) has not been complied with. The registered keeper was unaware of the PCN and does not admit to being the driver of the vehicle in question on the date in question, as such the keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time/with mandatory wording.
4. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an un-denied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. From research of similar cases and given the woeful POC and lack of any previous information, the Defendant doubts that any legitimate interest or clear signage applies in this case.
5. Had any contravention apparently taken place (and this is not confirmed), it can only have been that signage on and around the site in question was small, unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice(CoP).
5.1. The Claimant was a member of the BPA at the time and committed to follow its requirements,and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of compliance with the applicable Code of Practice.
6. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Premier Parking Solutions Ltd and that this chain of contracts was valid in its entirety on the date of the alleged offence.
7. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.
8. Prior to any court hearing theDefendant has sent a Subject Access Request (SAR) twice to BW Legal and once to PPS for the following:
8.1.(i) copies of the signs on which the Claimant relies and confirm with photographic evidence, that the signs were in situ on the date of the event.
(ii) Images of the signs that were at the entrance to the site on the date in question and confirmation that the signs met the BPA CoP that applied at the time of the alleged parking event.
(iii) copies of any letters sent, including the originalPCN and/or Notice to Keeper.
(iv) a full breakdown of the amount of the claim and how the amount was derived.
(v) the Claimant's reasons whythey believe the keeper has liability.
9. ThePOFA does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. That sum cannot have exceeded the BPA CoP ceiling of £100 and the Claimant cannot recover additional charges.
10. The Claimant has inexplicably added 'costs or damages' bolted onto the alleged PCN, despite using a solicitor to file the claim, who must be well aware that the CPR 27.14 does not permit such 'admin' charges to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.
10.1. In any event, the Beavis case confirmed that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead their case in damages and could only collect the already inflated parking charge (in that case, £85) which more than covered the very minimal costs of running an automated/template letter parking regime.
10.2. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show how any alleged costs/damages have been incurred and that it formed a prominent, legible part of any terms on signage, and that it was, in fact, expended. To add vague damages plus alleged 'legal costs' on top is a wholly disingenuous attempt at double recovery, and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.
10.3. Given the fact that BW Legal boasted in Bagri v BW Legal Ltd of processing 'millions' of claims with an admin team (and only a handful of solicitors), the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste PPS robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities.
10.4. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.
11. The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success. Alternatively, the Defendant requests the court to order the Claimant to provide Further and Better Particulars of Claimand allow the Defendant to respond to those POC.
12. The Defendant has sent a SAR to the Claimant, for response during October 2018, and will expand upon the denial of breach in the witness statement and evidence, once the Defendant has seen the details from the SAR and/or in the event that the Court orders the Claimant to file & serve better particulars.
13. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
Name
Signature
Date
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: to be added in the original
Premier Parking Solutions Ltd (Claimant)
-and-
(Defendant)
-and-
(Defendant)
DEFENCE
1. It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However, the Claimant has no cause of action and has filed this claim without providing any information to the Defendant whatsoever. The defendant asserts that he was the registered keeper but was not the driver as he only drove infrequently due to his partner having just given birth to their daughter. Further to this matter, the defendant never used car parks as he would always park at the fire station in town where he works (on the rare occasions he actually had to go into town). As the defendant was not the driver, the registered keeper cannot say whether the driver did breach the terms at the car park.
1.1Neither the Defendant, nor any other possible drivers, recall any 'parking charge notice' (PCN) from the past, nor does the Defendant even know where the car park was, having only the vague Particulars of Claim (POC). Any contractual agreement - and thus any breach - is denied.
2. The POC alleges that the Defendant was 'the registered keeper and/or the driver' of the vehicle, thereby vaguely offering a menu of choices copied from BW Legal's latest batch of robo-claims issued in September 2018. The Claimant has and failed to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the POC do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.
2.1. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction and the Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.
2.2. The vague POC discloses nothing that can lead to a claim in law. The parking event was far too long ago to expect a registered keeper to recall the day or who was driving, and it is believed from the Defendant's research of similar cases, that this Claimant did not use compliant documents to hold a registered keeper liable anyway.
3. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 (the POFA) has not been complied with. The registered keeper was unaware of the PCN and does not admit to being the driver of the vehicle in question on the date in question, as such the keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time/with mandatory wording.
4. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an un-denied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. From research of similar cases and given the woeful POC and lack of any previous information, the Defendant doubts that any legitimate interest or clear signage applies in this case.
5. Had any contravention apparently taken place (and this is not confirmed), it can only have been that signage on and around the site in question was small, unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice(CoP).
5.1. The Claimant was a member of the BPA at the time and committed to follow its requirements,and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of compliance with the applicable Code of Practice.
6. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Premier Parking Solutions Ltd and that this chain of contracts was valid in its entirety on the date of the alleged offence.
7. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.
8. Prior to any court hearing theDefendant has sent a Subject Access Request (SAR) twice to BW Legal and once to PPS for the following:
8.1.(i) copies of the signs on which the Claimant relies and confirm with photographic evidence, that the signs were in situ on the date of the event.
(ii) Images of the signs that were at the entrance to the site on the date in question and confirmation that the signs met the BPA CoP that applied at the time of the alleged parking event.
(iii) copies of any letters sent, including the originalPCN and/or Notice to Keeper.
(iv) a full breakdown of the amount of the claim and how the amount was derived.
(v) the Claimant's reasons whythey believe the keeper has liability.
9. ThePOFA does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. That sum cannot have exceeded the BPA CoP ceiling of £100 and the Claimant cannot recover additional charges.
10. The Claimant has inexplicably added 'costs or damages' bolted onto the alleged PCN, despite using a solicitor to file the claim, who must be well aware that the CPR 27.14 does not permit such 'admin' charges to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.
10.1. In any event, the Beavis case confirmed that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead their case in damages and could only collect the already inflated parking charge (in that case, £85) which more than covered the very minimal costs of running an automated/template letter parking regime.
10.2. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show how any alleged costs/damages have been incurred and that it formed a prominent, legible part of any terms on signage, and that it was, in fact, expended. To add vague damages plus alleged 'legal costs' on top is a wholly disingenuous attempt at double recovery, and the Defendant is alarmed by this gross abuse of process.
10.3. Given the fact that BW Legal boasted in Bagri v BW Legal Ltd of processing 'millions' of claims with an admin team (and only a handful of solicitors), the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste PPS robo-claims at all, on the balance of probabilities.
10.4. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.
11. The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success. Alternatively, the Defendant requests the court to order the Claimant to provide Further and Better Particulars of Claimand allow the Defendant to respond to those POC.
12. The Defendant has sent a SAR to the Claimant, for response during October 2018, and will expand upon the denial of breach in the witness statement and evidence, once the Defendant has seen the details from the SAR and/or in the event that the Court orders the Claimant to file & serve better particulars.
13. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
Name
Signature
Date
