N1SDT Claim Form Received - Euro Car Parks - QDR Solicitors

[sarin]

I have just received the following N1SDT claim form and submitted my Acknowledgment of Service on MCOL and am starting to consider defences. I have submitted my GDPR request and am also waiting the "Particulars of the claim" so can not fully prepare, however;

The first PCN my draft defence is currently the visibility of signage (well above head height, missing signs, signs with small writing on etc). Is there any case law that would provide a benchmark as to what is not acceptable? Incidentally the signs have now been now been added/replaced with larger signs. The date of the offence was also during the 2nd national COVID lockdown when I was volunteering. Could it also be argued that the loss is unquantifiable as no members of the public should have been travelling? (I had a lawful excuse). The council had allowed parking on the main road despite restrictions but all spaces were used hence parking there.

The second PCN was an overstay of 3 minutes from the 10 minute grace period and an outrageous £170 demand where the real loss is around £0.25p . Whilst I remember the the Terms and Conditions saying up-to 1 hour = £1, I have no memory of the grace period being specified and how long you have before needing to pay. They are yet to provide the T&Cs but either the grace period isn't on the sign or it's in ridiculously small writing. Either way the demand is excessive. Again is there any similar defences\case law please?

I will share my defence once the particulars are received for your kind review.

Kind Regards

Old Grumpy.

Please can I have the "no_create_permissions_attach" permission and I will upload the Claim form with available Particulars ?

[des8]

Could you please start a second thread for the second incident.
This is to prevent confusion.

To post up the documents, first upload them to a hosting site and then post a link on the appropriate thread

Do not identify the driver

[sarin]

N1SDT Claim Form


QDR Have just sent the following letter.
https://ibb.co/y4N5S3Y
https://ibb.co/8bjG05c

I still haven't received the Particulars of Claim but we haven't reached the expected 12th March date. Does the letter change any of my dates or does the case time table based on the Date of claim remain the same?

They have also reiterated their position and failed to send me any of the documents I have requested through the Letter Before Claim\Pre-Action Protocol stage. So at this point I'm unable to understand their position. Do I simply ignore this? I do feel like sending them back a "Without Prejudice" letter offering a sum based on their actual loss (1st PCN didn't see the signs, 2nd PCN £1..)

[des8]

So the Claim form (issued 22nd Feb deemed served 26th Feb, so fuller particulars to be served by 9th March) covers both incidents. Unusual!

Not really possible to work on a defence until full particulars received, but can you post up a photo of the signs and redacted phot0s of the PCNs (remove name & address, car reg number and PCN number but leave in all dates and times)

I note you have already acknowledged the claim, but really you didn't have yto do that until the fuller POC was to hand.
As it is you have severely reduced the time available for crafting your defence

[des8]

Good morning

Have just noted your post 3 was edited whilst I was responding, and so I have only just seen QDR's letter.

I would just acknowledge the letter and remind them of the overriding objective as per CPR1

As we have not seen the full correspondence between you it is difficult to advise further, but have you been able to obtain photos of the signage (Euro Car Parks is often poor!).?
Have you sent a Subject Access Request to Euro Parks requesting in particular copies of any PCNs?

[sarin]

I have Google maps photos of the signage from October 2020 just after my 1st PCN, I have a contemporaneous photo of a bad sign for my 2nd PCN and have been down to the site over the weekend to take photos from various angles. I can demonstrate fairly well that from where I parked you couldn't see the entrance sign or any Terms and Conditions signs. Will post them shortly.

Subject access request sent a few weeks ago. Hopefully will be back before I have to file my defence.

[sarin]

1) Summary Map detailing journey, parking space and showing missing signage

• This satellite map is provided by Google Images and annotated to provide a summary as of 03/03/2024
• This approximate parking location is relevant to both PCNs
• The route of approach can be see by the green dash travelling south on Harefield Road, turning left onto the Slip road and immediately right into a parking pay in Hatfield Retail Park
• There is only one yellow Terms and Conditions sign near the entrance however this is up an incline from the parking bay and is facing into the parking area. It is therefore side-on and not visible from the parking Bay.
• Several opportunities for Terms and Conditions signs that could have aided visibility are shown. As they are missing there is a large zone where no signs can be seen, especially where parked near the entrance.

2) Entrance to car park with Entrance sign mounted on a pole.

• The blue and white Entrance Sign is sited on top of an earthwork to the right of the Halfords sign. The sign’s bottom edge is 319cm from the ground.
• The height of the entrance sign precludes it from being seen whilst driving up the ramp from the driver’s seat.
• The parking bay that was used was on the right hand side of the picture by the tree.
• The tree partially obscures visibility of the entrance sign
• As of 03/03/2024 this tree is no longer in situ.

3) This is the original sign from 2020 from google but they have been replaced. I haven't got anything from the solicitors 'yet' on this. unsure whether to include it in my evidence. My defence is currently that I didn't see it so couldn't be bound by the conditions

4) This shows a Terms and Conditions Sign in place in 2015 prior to my first PCN

5) This shows the same Terms and Conditions Sign missing in 2020 just prior to my first PCN

6) This picture shows that the sign is still missing as of 03/03/2024

7) This is the view of the entrance sign from my parking bay

• Image taken on 03/03/2024.
• The blue pole of the entrance sign can be seen however the angle of the sign pointing towards the junction, precludes it from being seen from this parking bay.
• No Terms and Conditions signs are visible from this vantage point

8) This is the view of the wall behind the parking bay demonstrating no Terms and Conditions Signs (images off google)

• Image taken on 03/03/2024.
• The view of the immediate wall behind the parking bay shows no Terms and Conditions signage.

9) View of the car park from the parking bay showing no visible Terms and Conditions Signage

• Image taken on 03/03/2024.
• View into the car park demonstrates there is no visible yellow Terms and Conditions signage
• The lamp post on the right of the picture obscures the yellow Terms and Conditions sign behind it.

10) For the 2nd PCN in 2022 This is the Terms and Conditions Signage in effect. Unsure whether to include this in my witness statement.


11) Photo of Signs taken in situe on 2022 with a Temporary notice attached

• Image taken on 14/09/2022 in relation to 2nd PCN of the same date.
• The centre sign titled “Warning” has paper affixed over the sign and is weathered.
• The lower piece of paper says “This parking will be suspended on Tuesday 4^th June 2022”
• The Terms and Conditions Sign can be seen to be missing

[des8]

Witness statement not required yet.
Wait and see what the extended POC state before crafting defence

[sarin]

The Particulars of Claim have arrived. I have looked at the MSE template defence but seen advice on here not to use it and to customize. Where should I start? I feel I can argue that their signage is missing/poorly maintained so that it doesn't satisfy 'adequete notice' of Beavis or requirements in the DLUHC Code which reflects the already statutory requirement for 'prominence' (Consumer Rights Act 2015 - the 'CRA'). There is also lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a parking charge including:
(i) Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (Lord Denning's ‘red hand rule’) and
(ii) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2,
(iii) Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000, where Ms Vine won because it was held that she had not seen the terms by which she would later be bound, due to "the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the parking space''.

Where should I start please?

[des8]

So you dispute the particulars point by point following the numbering of their paragraphs

.I'm a tad busy now and tomorrow, but I'll get some pointers for you over the weekend.

Mind you it's a busy time with Rugby & Formula !

[des8]

So you need something along the lines of:

#

1. The Defendant received the claim No 123456 from Euro Car parks Ltd on 14/12/2023.
2. Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.
3. The Defendant does not to know (and neither does the Claimant) whether the Claimant owns or is only authorised to carry out parking enforcement services at Harefield Retail Park, Uxbridge
4. The Defendant admits to being the registered keeper of the vehicle, but denies naming the driver as alleged in the POC
5. The Defendant avers the signs are not capable of forming a contract with the driver as they are insufficient and unclear
6. Had to interrupt this suddenly at !!.40 Saturday will get back to it later today or tomorrow

[sarin]

I had some fun this weekend on the below if my defence is required. Should probably get the maths checked but I'm convinced!

[des8]

Restarting now;
After 4 insert a new no.5
5.If the Claimant Knows the driver's identity as claimed, the Claimant should not be proceeding against the keeper (PoFA2012 Sch4 para 5 (I))
6.The Defendant avers the signs are not capable of forming a contract with the driver as they are insufficient and unclear
7.The claimant states in para 4. of his PoC that the vehicle was parked "without a valid permit or authority".
Contrariwise in the Schedule 1) attached to the PoC the Claimant states on the first occasion the vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed, and on the second occasion the vehicle was parked without a valid paid by phone transaction.
The PoC is unclear about what terms and conditions may have been breached. It does not explain what permit or authority was required nor how the breach occurred, nor what maximum period was allowed nor what period the vehicle was actually parked.
8. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the recovery of the parking charges and unspecified collection charges in respect of the PCN(s) against the Defendant as either the driver or the Keeper for the following reasons:
9.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.
10. 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.
11.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.

12.It fails to explain what charges the claimant seeks to recover, and is also contrary to CRA2015 Schedule2 (10 & 14).
13. Consequently, the term is unfair and is not binding on the Defendant pursuant to sec 62 of CRA 2015

14.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).
15. 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))
16. the Defendant denies that the claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all

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.
That is the sort of defence I would be making, but it is for you to decide what to use or not.
Check anything you go along with, and look up the references to make sure you understand them.
You might like to read the judgment in "Excel v Wilkinson" (its available through MSE so just google Excel v Wilkinson for a link)

Just seen your last post .. might be useful when you write your witness statement.
Where did it come from .. provenance is everything as they say in the antiques business!

[sarin]

I created it in Photoshop. Bit of a Google refresh of GCSE maths. Add a sprinkle of known measurements and out comes a tasty visualisation.

Many thanks for the above. Will have a read of Excel Wilkinson.

[sarin]

"4.The Defendant admits to being the registered keeper of the vehicle, but denies naming the driver as alleged in the POC"

Do I have to state in my defence that I was the driver on the day (i.e. whether I was or not)? Or is it likely I will be asked that on the day of the case? I don't want to lie but conversely I don't want to add something to aid the Claimant.