National Parking Management Claim

[PoppyCox]

Hi, I have a slightly interesting case I'd like some advice on, please

I've just received a claim form for a PCN I received for parking without paying for a ticket. However, I was unable to pay on the day!

The car park used a company called PopPay for app payments but on the day, having downloaded the app for the first time, it always returned an error when attempting to make payment. I tried with 3 different cards.

A quick look at the reviews on the app store and it appears it was far from an isolated incident - https://play.google.com/store/apps/d...poppay13&hl=en

On the day, it probably took over 10 minutes [the grace period] to download, register and make multiple payment attempts and by this stage I was in danger of being late for an appointment so had no choice but to leave the car where it was.

Where do I stand in terms of them not providing an adequate method of payment?

At this stage I am just about to acknowledge the claim, but not file any defence - deadline for acknowledgement is July 24th. Should I defend PART of the claim, or ALL. I'm of the opinion that I should defend PART and agree to pay the original parking tariff, or is that not wise?

[des8]

Just acknowledge the claim for now.

then send a Subject access request to the parking company and a CPR31.14 to their solicitors (templates in SHORTCUTS panel on right)

Did you appeal the PCN?

Can't possibly comment on your defence without seeing the claim form and the original PCN.
Photo of the signage would also be useful

Try not to identify the driver when communicating with them or on here

[PoppyCox]

Hi

Attached is the Claim Form along with 4 images

1 - approach to the car park
2 - sign immediately on the right of the entrance
3 & 4 - examples of other signs around the car park

[des8]

Dead line for acknowledgement of claim is 14days after date of postmark ..... trust you were in time.
You now have a couple of weeks in which to submit defence, so wait to see what (if anything) comes back following your requests.

If you still have it, a copy of the original PCN would be useful.
Is it possible to obtain a clearer picture of the tiny writing of the terms& conditions on sign.
It's too blurry to read when I enlarge it (probably my fault as not very computer literate )

In any case give us a nudge in a week's time and will produce a defence

[PoppyCox]

Deadline was 14-days plus 5 days from date on claim form, so acknowledged in time

I don't have the original PCN. I don't recall receiving one, but i'll see if i can get one from their website tomorrow

enlarged version of the T&Cs are attached

[des8]

Your defence is due to be filed in a couple of weeks (7/08) so over this weekend I'll draft something.

However if gladstones reply to your CPR31.14 in time it will probably need amending

[des8]

Here's a suggested defence for you to work on.
At the very least it needs setting out better!

1. .The Defendant received the claim xxx from National Parking Management 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. The defendant avers the Claimant's statement of case firstly fails to give adequate information to enable the Defendant to properly assess the Defendant's position with regards the claim and secondly has failed to properly plead its case in accordance with
   
   CPR 16.4(1)(a)
   Specifically the Particulars of Claim:
   i state that the claim is for unpaid parking and contractual costs and refers to a parking charge Notice
   
   ii. the Particulars of Claim alleges that the Defendant is liable as the Driver/keeper of the vehicle but fails to provide any reasons on which the Claimant relies upon to prove such liabilities.
4. It is well established that the Claimant must provide adequate pleadings and include all essential ingredients of the cause of action so as to enable the Defendant to understand the case against them. The Particulars of Claim, as drafted, are inadequate which makes it difficult for the Defendant to respond as she does not know or understand the basis of the Claimant’s case.
5. Further, the Defendant is surprised by the poor drafting of the particulars given that the Claimant is represented professionally by a firm of solicitors and so the lack of compliance with the 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:
   1. make an order that unless the Claimant (i) files and re-serves an amended Particulars of Claim compliant with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and (ii) provide the necessary documentation in order for The Defendant to fully plead her case within 14 days of said order, then the claim shall be struck out and judgment entered in favour of the Defendant;
   2. If the Claimant should comply with such an order , the Defendant will then be in a position to amend her defence, and would ask that the Claimant bears the costs of the amendment.
      Or
   3. if the court considers it appropriate, to strike out the claim in whole or in part, as the basis that the claim discloses no reasonable grounds for a cause of action; and
   4. exercise any other case management powers the court sees fit
   5. Without prejudice to the foregoing paragraphs, the Defendant intends to respond to the allegations raised in the Particulars of Claim as best she is able.
   
   
   
   
   Defendant’s liability as the driver of the vehicle
6. .In the Particulars of Claim, the Claimant pursues the defendant as the driver, so it is fair to assume 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 took place. It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant is ignorant of the driver's identity and his allegations are nothing more than a fishing expedition

7 The Claimant asserts the reason the PCN was issued was "the Defendant parked in breach of t the terms of parking stipulated on the signage" but,( altho' requested by letter/email d dated dd/mm/yy) has failed to provide a legible copy of the signs nor indicated which term(s) o or condition(s) were contravened, nor how they were contravened


.Defendant’s liability as the keeper
8.The claimant fails to state how the liability for an unpaid parking charge may be transferred from the driver to the keeper of a vehicle

9The Claimant has failed to deliver a copy of the original Parking Charge Notice altho' r requested by letter/email dated dd/mm/yy

Recovery of Claimant’s unspecified costs

10.: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 are not recoverable.

11)Alternatively, if the defendant is being sued as the driver, having subsequently visited the site of the alleged incident, the Defendant asserts the “additional costs” 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.

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.

12)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 costs.

13)It fails to explain what costs the claimant seeks to recover, and is also contrary to CRA2015 Schedule2 (10 & 14)

14)Consequently, the term is unfair and is not binding on the Defendant pursuant to section 62 of the CRA2015)

15)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).

16)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) )


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.

[signed]

dated