Court claim for parking fine from 5 years 4 months ago

[Adaalat]

Received a claim? Yes
Issue Date: 17/01/2020
Have you Acknowledged the Claim?: Yes
Total Amount Claimed : £330
Claimant’s Name: G24 Limited
Solicitors Firm: DCB Legal


Particulars of Claim:
1. The Defendant is indebted to the Claimant for a Parking Charge, issued to Vehicle X at Salford Shopping Centre, [Address]
2. The date of the contraventention is 17/01/2020 and the Defencdentant was issued with PC by the Claimant
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the sign (the contract) Reason: Exceeding the maximum permitted duration of stay permitted at
4. In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4

List any letters you have sent (eg: CCA/ CPR ):
It's really difficult to recall given the timescales. Recently I've only sent an acknowedglment of service form to the court

Any Other Information or Background Details:
I received this parking fine over 5 years ago for overstaying at a car park. I think I appealed to the car park management at the time (identifying myself as the driver im 99% sure) to explain it was a misunderstanding as I counted the time limit from the moment I left my car to when I returned rather than when my car entered the car park to when it left. No ticket purchase was required, it was a free car park but has camera's. I assumed this to be accpeted as I didnt hear back from them until the end of 2024. I ignore the letters theyve sent but need to complete my appeal in the next day or two for the court.

Help is much appreciated.

[Adaalat]

I should add due to the passage of time and thinking my appeal had initially been accepted I've not retained the orginal 'fine', my appeal or copies of the signage etc. I have found the attached image of the T&C's from 2016 from a google search and presume these were the one's in force in 2020.

[des8]

You have left it rather late to ask for help if your defence is due to be filed shortly!

As soon as you received the court claim you should have fired off requests to G24 and DCB Legal for the documentation they were relying on.
That would have produced what is probably a non compliant Notice to Keeper.

Anyway you are where you are so please post up a redacted copy of the actual claim form, and we'll see what can be done

[Adaalat]

A combination of life events and forgetting this site exists has just pushed it further back than it should have been.

[des8]

As the claim was issued on 16th April, and you have acknowledged it your defence deadline for filing and serving is 19th May.

Am busy today so will draft something for you on Wednesday

[des8]

Viewing the urgency and lack of documentation here's the best I can do!
Remember, if you use this or base your defence on it, it is your defence so read and understand it.

You will need to email it or send by post.

INTRODUCTION
Unless otherwise stated in this Defence:
i) the Defendant uses the same terminology as the Claimant has employed in the Particulars of Claim; and
ii) the Defendant denies each and every allegation or that the Claimant is entitled to any relief.
iii) all references to paragraph numbers are to paragraph numbers in the Particulars of Claim

1. This claim has been issued against the Defendant in connection with the Defendant's refusal to pay a private parking charge(s) which the Claimant alleges that the Defendant is liable to pay either as the driver of the vehicle or as the registered keeper. 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).. 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. For example, the particulars allege that the Defendant:
   1. entered into a contract with the Claimant but does not explain how or on what basis the contract was entered into;
   2. is liable as the driver of the vehicle but does not indicate the basis of that allegation
   3. is liable as the registered keeper of the vehicle yet the Claimant has failed to particularise the basis of that allegation.
   4. refers to parking Charge(s) but does not clarify if singular or multiple
   5. claims "£170 being the total of the PC(s) and damages" without indicating how the total is computed
2. The Defendant is surprised by the haziness of the particulars given that the Claimant is represented professionally by a firm of solicitors and as such, the lack of compliance with the CPR to formulate proper particulars cannot be excused. The court is invited to consider its general case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.1 to

(i)make an order that unless the Defendant files and serves an amended Particulars of Claim compliant with CPR 16.4(1)(a) within 14 days of said order, then the claim shall be struck out and judgment entered in favour of the Defendant; or
(ii)if the court considers it appropriate, to strike out the claim entirely as on the basis that the claim discloses no reasonable grounds for a cause of action; and
(iii)exercise any other case management powers the court sees fit.

APPLICABLE LAW

1. Section 56 together with Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) provides landowners with powers to manage parking on their land. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 of POFA stipulates that the liability for an unpaid parking charge may only be transferred from the driver to the registered keeper of the vehicle if certain conditions as prescribed in Schedule 4 are met.

LIABILITY AS THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE

1. The Claimant has failed to provide any supporting evidence that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time. Accordingly, the Claimant's allegation is entirely baseless and nothing more than a fishing expedition which the Defendant considers to be an abuse of process.
2. Without prejudice to the foregoing paragraph, the Claimant has not provided any 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.
3. In the absence of evidence that the Defendant was the driver, 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 as the driver of the vehicle.
4. If (which the Defendant denies), the Defendant is found to be liable for the Parking Charge as the driver, the Defendant will say that the Parking Charge is not enforceable on the basis that the terms were contrary to the requirement of good faith which causes a significant imbalance under the contract to the detriment of the Defendant. Consequently, the term is unfair and is not binding on the Defendant pursuant to section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.(CRA) The Defendant will rely on Section 68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which requires that every term of a consumer contract must be transparent and expressed in a plain and intelligible language. The Defendant contends that the term referring to the charges on the signage was neither transparent nor intelligible in that:

(i)the font size of the term was extremely small making it illegible from a reasonable distance; the term ought to have been presented in a manner which was far more legible considering the amount of blank space available on the sign itself; and
(ii)the term refers to ‘charges' but failed to explain what charges the Claimant is seeking to recover. Accordingly, the term described is vague and ambiguous contrary to the guidance published by the Competition and Markets Authority on unfair contract terms.
(iii) 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).
(iv) In this claim unspecified damages (presumably the "charges"mentioned on the signs) 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))

5, additionally the Defendant recalls appealing to the Claimant when the Notice to Keeper was issued. The appeal was based on the fact
that the driver reported that his overstay was of short duration as he understood the time limit was for "parking", not for "staying" within
within the car park limits. This overstay would have been covered by the BPA Operator's Code of Practice (by which the claimant was
bound)and which at the time of the event stated at section13.3
" Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, .........., this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN."

LIABILITY AS THE REGISTERED KEEPER

1.It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle with registration xx11 abc
2 It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to recover the Parking Charge from the Defendant as registered keeper of the vehicle:
i).Contrary to condition 5(1)(a) of POFA 2012, the Claimant failed to provide evidence that it has the right to enforce against the
driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the Parking Charge. The Claimant has failed to supply:
(a)a copy of the written contract setting out the Claimant’s authority to enforce and/or pursue the Parking Charge against the driver; and
(b)what (if any) conditions may be attached as regards the recovery of the Parking Charge.
ii).Contrary to PoFA 2012 sch4 condition 5(1)(b), the Claimant knew the identity of the driver prior to the commencement of these
proceedings. In the particulars of claim "the Defendant is pursued as 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. The Defendant will seek to rely on
paragraph 221 of the POFA 2012 Explanatory Notes, which states that:… The creditor is not obliged to pursue unpaid parking charges through this scheme and may seek to do so through other means but they may not use the scheme provided for here to secure double recovery of unpaid parking charges (paragraph 4(6)), nor will they have the right to pursue the keeper, as opposed to the driver, of the vehicle where they have sufficient details of the driver’s identity (emphasis added)

Recovery of Claimant’s costs associated with the Parking Charge

1.To the extent that the Claimant seeks to recover the costs incurred in pursuing the Parking Charge, the Defendant denies that such sums are recoverable for the following reasons:
(i)The costs sought by the Claimant are based upon a contractual right under the terms of the parking contract. It is well established
under the doctrine of privity that a person who is not party to the contract cannot sue or be sued. Any contractual relationship in
respect of the parking and the alleged contravention was solely between the Claimant and the driver of the vehicle, not the
registered keeper; and
(ii)also paragraph 4(5) of POFA 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 unpaid parking charges specified in the
notice were £100.

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 contractual costs is not recoverable and amounts to an abuse of process.

2.The Defendant did appeal a parking charge as detailed previously, but receiving no response assumed the appeal was successful.
It could be inferred that by not responding to the appeal, but delaying the issuing of proceedings for over 4 years the Claimant is deliberately setting out to increase his income by claiming an excessive amount of interest

CONCLUSION

For the reasons as set out in this Defence, the Claimant is not entitled to pursue the Defendant as either the registered keeper or the driver of the vehicle for the Parking Charge or costs/damages

Statement of truth

[Adaalat]

Many thanks for producing the above however the (horrible and archaic) online system does not allow me to submit as it goes over the 122 line limit they have. The sections 'liability as the registered keeper' onwards are excluded at the moment.

Could I trouble you to make it more succint? Though I follow the general gist you clearly have expertise as to the most pertinent points and will know better than me what points can be condensed or removed.

Or would you advise I would have a stronger defence if I was to reply by physical post in the current format? Will it be possible to switch to 'paper' given I filed my acknowledgement online?

[des8]

I would not recommend paraphrasing it,
In post 6 I advised "You will need to email it or send by post" as I was fully aware it would not fit MCOL limits.
Chunks could be omitted, but that will have to be your decision as certain avenues of defence will be lost

[Adaalat]

I did see that but there doesn't seem to be an option to email, presume I'm missing something?

[des8]

You can send by email to court at - ccbcaq@justice.gov.uk, but as you should send a copy by mail to the claimant's solicitor I usually recommend sending by first class mail with free certificate of posting to both court and defendant

[Adaalat]

I dont see that email address listed anywhere so thanks for sharing. Also there's nothing in the guidance about sending a copy to the claimants solicitors, is that just a courtesy? I'm not sure im minded to be so courteous...

[des8]

Not a courtesy but a requirement!
CPR 39.8 requires that a communication between a party to proceedings and the court must be disclosed to and, if in writing, copied to, the other party or parties or their representatives.

[Adaalat]

The latest update is that I've had a N180 sent to me via email and the following message:

"Good morning,

Having reviewed the content of your defence, we write to inform you that our client intends to proceed with the claim.

In due course, the Court will direct both parties to each file a directions questionnaire. In preparation for that, please find attached a copy of the Claimant's, which we confirm has been filed with the Court.

Without Prejudice to the above, in order to assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our client may be prepared to settle this case - in the event you wish to discuss settlement, please call us on 0203 434 0433 within 7 daysand make immediate reference to this correspondence.

If you have provided an email address within your Defence, we intend to use it for service of documents (usually in PDF format) hereon in pursuant to PD 6A (4.1)(2)(c). Please advise whether there are any limitations to this (for example, the format in which documents are to be sent and the maximum size of attachments that may be received). Unless you advise otherwise, we will assume not."


I have also filed an N180 to both the court and the claimant. I've also found my appeal response from Feb 2020:

"Thank you for your email.

You received a parking charge because the driver breached the terms and conditions of parking - and is therefore liable to pay the amount of a parking charge stated on our signage. We also refer you to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act, which sets out the legal basis upon which we may demand payment from the vehicle’s registered keeper if the driver fails to pay us the parking charge.

There are sufficient signs at the entrance to and in prominent locations throughout the car park displaying the terms and conditions. Your are welcome to revisit the site to view the signage, we advise you to adhere to the terms and conditions of parking when visit the site.
Our signage complies with the International Parking Community's Approved Operator Scheme.

As your appeal has been rejected, any further correspondence may not receive a response, the options below are still open to you.

You now have one of the following options available to you:

1. Pay the outstanding Parking Charge. Payment of your Contractual Parking Charge Notice can be made via the payment line: 0333 733 3000 or by sending a cheque or postal order to G24 Limited, PO Box 3320, Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire, SL9 8WT.

2. If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to appeal to The Independent Appeals Service (www.theIAS.org), The Independent Appeals Service provides an Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme for disputes of this type. As you have complied with our internal appeals procedure you may use, and we will engage with, the The Independent Appeals Service Standard Appeals Service providing you lodge an appeal to them within 21 days of your first rejection.

3. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you.

Customer Services
G24 Ltd"


Do you have any advice on how to best proceed from here?

[des8]

You need to decide on whether or not to contacting them with a view to trying to negotiate a settlement prior to court.
If you do that start with a very low offer

You could wait until the court offers their mediation service.
This is free, over the phone and doesn't involve any direct communication between parties. The mediator shuffles between the parties.

You do have a chance of winning, but you need to weigh up how confident are you in your ability to argue your points, how much it will cost you to spend a day waiting around in court, the stress and the fact that small claims track in the county court is a bit of a lottery.

On the other hand even if you lose the judgement should reduce the amount payable by disregarding the extra £70 charges

I would always go to court, but my circumstances are not yours.
Sometimes I won, sometimes I've lost